Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKERin the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL [MONEY] BILL (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—

London County Council [Money] Bill
Bill to be read a Second time.
Lloyd's Bill [Lords],
Read a Second time, and committed.
Scarborough Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a Second time, and committed.

WEST HARTLEPOOL CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order made by the. Minister of Transport under The West Hartlepool Corporation Act, 1923, relating to West Hartlepool Corporation Trolley Vehicles," presented by Colonel ASHLEY; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 174.]

Sandwich Port and Haven Bill,

Petition of the Sandwich Corporation, against; referred to the Select Committee on the Bill

TRAMWAYS AND LIGHT RAILWAYS (STREET AND ROAD) AND TRACK-LESS TROLLEY UNDERTAKINGS.

Return ordered, of street and road tramways and light railways authorised
by Act or Order, showing the amount of capital authorised, paid up, and expended; the length of line authorised, and the length open for traffic, and number of cars owned at the 31st day of December, 1924, in respect of companies, and the end of the financial year 1924-25 in respect of local authorities; the gross receipts, working expenditure, net receipts, and appropriations, the transactions in reserve funds, and traffic and operating statistics for the year ended on the foregoing dates, respectively (in continuation of Return to an Order of the House, dated the 30th day of April, 1924); also similar particulars relating to trackless trolley undertakings.—[Colonel Ashley]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

MONTENEGRO.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any recent trade Returns showing exports and imports from Montenegro, and exports and imports from Great Britain to Montenegro,and what were the corresponding figures in 1913?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE(Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The latest year for which particulars are available for Montenegro separately is 1922. During that year no imports into the United Kingdom were registered as consigned from Montenegro, but exports of United Kingdom produce and manufacture to the value of £1,021 were consigned to Montenegro. In the year 1913 the imports, as in 1922, were nil, and the exports of United Kingdom produce and manufactures amounted to £2,177 in value. In that year there were also exports from the United Kingdom of foreign and colonial merchandise, valued at £241, consigned to Montenegro.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are separate figures still being kept of the exports and imports to and from this country?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir; they are included in the exports to and imports from the Serb-Croat-Slovene State.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: Would it not be possible to have them separately, as this is a separate entity?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I do not think it would be possible and, judging from the rather exiguous figures I have given, I do not think it would be valuable.

VEGETABLES AND FRUITS.

Major BARNETT: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the total imports from foreign countries during 1924 of asparagus, strawberries, and other vegetables and fruits out of season; and whether figures are available as to the amount of such luxury imports from the Channel Islands and other parts of the British Empire?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Particulars of the imports of strawberries, of various other descriptions of fresh fruits, of potatoes, of onions and of tomatoes are given month by month in the Official Accounts relating to trade and navigation of the United Kingdom. These accounts also show separately the imports of potatoes from the Channel Islands. Asparagus is included in the heading, "Vegetables, raw, not elsewhere specified," and separate particulars regarding that vegetable are, accordingly, not available.

Major BARNETT: Would the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to these luxury imports, in view of the fact that asparagus at £2 a bundle and strawberries at Is. each are not in any sense the food of the people?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary of the Treasury is present.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Oh, then may we consider that the Government are considering taxes on food?

Major WHELER: Do these luxury imports get the benefit of the special railway rates?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I cannot say as to that.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

TRADE FACILITIES.

Mr. HARRISON: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any applications have been made by Arcos, Limited, or by Centrosoyus, Limited, for advances under the Trade Facilities Act and the Export Credit Scheme; if so, to what amount; and if any advances have been made or if it is contemplated to make any?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): An application by Arcos, Limited, for a guarantee of £2,000,000 and an application by Centrosoyus, Limited, for a guarantee of £100,000 under the Trade Facilities Act were received in June, 1924: the Advisory Committee were unable to recommend either. No applications under the Export Credits Scheme have been received from Arcos, Limited, or from Centrosoyus, Limited.

Mr. MAXTON: Was the decision of the Advisory Committee made on the business merits of the proposition, or on the political prejudices attached to it?

Mr. GUINNESS: I understand that it was entirely on the business merits. The matter never came before the Treasury.

Mr. MACKINDER:: Would it not be possible for hon. Members to be given the grounds?

Mr. GUINNESS: I think that would be most undesirable. It is necessary, if this Committee is to perform its functions satisfactorily that it should be allowed to judge these matters on business grounds and apart from political considerations

Mr. MACKINDER: Are we to understand from that there is no possibility of getting to know the grounds for the refusal of these facilities; if so, how can the House form an opinion without such knowledge?

Mr. GUINNESS: That has been the universal practice ever since the trade facilities scheme was introduced.

Sir PHILIP RICHARDSON: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in considering any applications made by the Russian Soviet Government or its trading organisations in this country, such as Arcos, Limited, and
Centrosoyus, for facilities under the Export Credits Scheme or the Trade Facilities Act, he will make the granting of such facilities dependent upon the Soviet Government satisfying the legitimate claims of British creditors in respect of nationalised property and repudiated loans owned by British subjects?

Mr. GUINNESS: It is the policy of His Majesty's Government to refuse credit facilities to the Soviet Government or its agencies until the Soviet Government itself establishes such conditions in the treatment of debts or compensation for confiscated property as will restore confidence and command credit.

Mr. MACKINDER: Will it be possible now for the Governments to get together and see if they can establish that desired object?

Mr. GUINNESS: That does not arise out of the question.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the extreme difficulty in which the Soviet Government finds itself in reaching that desirable state of affairs to which he has referred, because of the fact that they are compelled to pay 24 per cent. in the money market for the discount of their bills in London?

Mr. GUINNESS: That is probably the price the money market exacts on account of their financial record.

HERRINGS (BRITISH CONSIGNMENTS).

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 29.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he can state the quantity of cured herrings purchased, and the total amount paid therefor by the Russian Government or by agents known to be acting for that Government last year; and whether, in view of the congestion in the markets for cured herrings at the present time, His Majesty's Government propose to take any steps to arrive at a commercial understanding with the Russian Government which would enable credits to be granted for the export of herrings to Russia under the Exports Credit Scheme?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have been asked to reply. The exports of cured or salted herrings from the United Kingdom consigned to Russia during the year 1924 amounted to 806,859 cwts. at a
total declared value of £729,062. I am unable to state the quantity purchased by the Russian Government. As to the second part of the question, I would refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for the Western Isles by the Prime Minister on 1st April.

Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that the delay in arriving at some commercial understanding with the Russian Government is inflicting great hardship on an important industry?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware of the fact that as regards the balance of sales by Russia in this country, and purchases by Russia in this country, there is a very large balance in favour of Russia, so that if Russia wishes to buy more of my hon. and gallant Friend's herrings, she is quite in a position to do so.

Mr. TAYLOR:: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that large orders are being lost to this country because the Government do not take steps to straighten out the relations between this country and Russia?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. That is a separate question.

Sir FRANK MEYER:: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that herrings sold by the curers in this country at 50s. per barrel are being retailed in Leningrad at the present time at £10 per barrel?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I was not aware of that fact, and, if it is so, it ought to encourage the Russian Government to buy a great many more if they can make so handsome a profit.

BRITISH TRADE.

Mr. THURTLE: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the respective values of the exports to and imports from Russia for the quarter ending 31st March of this year; and whether these values represent an increase on the corresponding figures for the same period of last year?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the answer contains a table of figures, the hen. Member will perhaps allow me to have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT

Mr. THURTLE: In regard to the last part of the question, could not the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is an increase or a decrease in the figures?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There is an increase.

Trade of Great Britian and Northen Ireland with Russia


Branch of Trade
Three months ended 31st March 1924
Three months ended 31st March,1925
Increas in 1925 as compared with 1924



£
£
£


Imports consigned from Russia
2,263,264
3,245,996
982,732


Exports consigned to Russia





(a) Produce and Manufacture of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
308,596
1,502,393
1,193,797


(b) Foreign and Colonial Merchandise
677,134
3,097,418
2,420,284

Oral Answers to Questions — FINANCE BILL.

SILK IMPORTS ANT) EXPORTS.

Mr. SEXTON: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the quantity and value of natural and artificial silk, including cocoons, raw silk and thrown or spun tissue, imported into this country between the years 1921 and 1922 and up the present, together with the quantity and value of imported manufactured silk goods; the quantity and value of manufactured silk goods exported from this country; and the quantity and value of the amount consumed here?

Mr. HARRIS: 7.
asked the Presidentofthe Board of Trade if he will state, for the last five years for which statistics are available, the quantities and value of silk and artificial silk manufactures exported from the United Kingdom; and what were the corresponding imports of the same?

Sir P.CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will reply to these questions together. As the answer contains tables of figures, the hon. Members will perhaps agree to my circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. HARRIS: I only asked for one year; my question was a simple and straightforward one.

Colonel GRETTON: Could the right hon. Gentleman inform the House the source of these figures?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think they are taken from the official returns.

Following is the answer:

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:: When he has the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I think he w ill see that that figure is included

Following is the answer:

From 1st April, 1923, the particulars include the trade of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with the high Free State.

From the same date, the direct foreign trade of the Irish Free State has been excluded.

The particulars do not include details of imports and exports of hosiery and other articles of apparel in respect of which separate statements regarding such goods as are of silk or of artificial silk are not available.

Information regarding the consumption in the United Kingdom of the several classes of silk goods specified in the tables is not available, as the quantities and values of goods manufactured in this country have not been ascertained for any of the periods specified. Particulars in respect of goods made during 1924 will be obtained in connection with the Census of Production now in progress.

TOTAL IMPORTS INTO THE UNITED KINGDOM.


QUANTITES of the undermentioned descriptions of Silk and Silk Manufactures registered as consigned to the United Kingdom from all countries.


Description
Unit
1921.
1922.
1923.
1924.
First three months of 1925.



QUANTITIES


Silk Knubs and Waste
Cwt.
11,318
35,601
23,617
36,500
12,265


Silk Noils
Cwt.
753
2,343
1,056
3,079
96


Silk, Raw
Lbs.
445,409
976,279
734,322
808,503
167,677


Artificial Silk Waste
Lbs.
*
*
251,344
276,175
73,948


Silk and Silk Manufactures:








Thrown Silk
Lbs.
25,473
2,262
52,676
28,765
38,800


Spun Silk Yarn
Lbs.
347,213
674,026
634,553
684,815
336,313


Silk Manufactures Wholly of Silk:








Piece Goods, Dyed or not Dyed:








Pile Fabrics
Sq.Yds.
277,438
182,504
61,242
68,122,407
21,286,997


Other Fabrics:






Natural Undyed (including Habutae).
Sq. Yds.
18,956,076
22,982,944
17,783,939


Other Descriptions
Sq. Yds.
31,270,089
28,122,442
36,549,653


Lace and Articles thereof (except Embroidery):








Hand Made
Recorded by value only.


Machine Made


Ribbons


Manufactures of Silk mixed with Other Materials if known as "Silks":








Piece Goods, Dyed or not Dyed:








Pile Fabrics
Sq. Yds.
98,235
1110,119
485,390
22,990,834
5,444,139


Other Fabrics
Sq. Yds.
11,370,533
6,923,968
12,916,593


Lace and Articles thereof (except Embroidery).
Recorded by value only.


Ribbons


Other Manufactures of Silk, or of Silk mixed with Other Materials if known as "Silks"(except Apparel).


Artificial Silk including Yarn.
Lbs.
1,280,220
2,642,135
5,853,239
Information not yet available.


Artificial Silk Manufactures, other than Apparel:








Piece Goods (including Plushes).
Recorded by value only.


Other Sorts, not elsewhere specified.


Apparel:








Gloves of Woven Fabric, Silk.
Doz. Prs.
19,741
10,313
†
†
†


* Included in "Artificial Silk, including yarn" prior to 1923.


†Not separately distinguished after 1922.

DEATH DUTIES (VALUATION OF REAL ESTATE).

Mr.BENNETT: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the difficulty in fixing the value of real estate for Death Duty; and whether he is prepared to introduce legislation to fix the rate for the above purpose at 20 years' purchase on the average previous five years' free revenue?

Mr. GUINNESS: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin). I am sending him a copy of that reply.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. BECKETT: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many warrants for distraint, summons in Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and proceedings in High Court have been applied for in connection with non-payment of Income Tax since 1st November, 1924?

Mr. GUINNESS:: I regret that no information is available as to the numbers of warrants for distraint and summonses in Courts of Summary Jurisdiction respectively. In the period mentioned, 8,249 writs have been issued in the High Court for arrears of taxes, of which 7,800 were for Income Tax

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the rate of Income Tax paid in Germany, Italy, France and America, respectively, by those whose incomes do not exceed £1,000 per year; and what exemptions are allowed for children under 16 years of age in those countries?

Mr. GUINNESS:: I fear I cannot attempt this calculation for the reasons given in my reply to the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) on the 18th February last. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of that reply

S.S. "JOHN HARRISON "(INQUIRY).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, at the inquiry into the loss, or supposed loss, of the s.s. "John Harrison," he will consider the advisability of calling as witnesses persons
whose appointments would not be jeopardised as a result of the evidence they may tender; and whether his Department has received information from the Mercantile Marine Service Association that considerable doubt as to the seaworthiness of these vessels exists amongst men who have sailed in them?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE - LISTER:: The limitation which the lion. and gallant Member's suggestion would impose on the conduct of wreck inquiries might be embarrassing and could not, I think, be accepted; but there is no reason, so far as the Board of Trade are aware, to suppose that the question of jeopardising appointments will in fact arise in connection with the present case. A communication has been received from the association mentioned in the question about the seaworthiness of a particular vessel

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY:: Doubtless it is my fault, but the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my question, which is: whether he will consider the advisability of calling witnesses other than those whose professional positions might be jeopardised—independent witnesses—who could assist the assessors

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:: I am afraid I did rather misunderstand the question. It is the common practice, I think, to call all the evidence that may be considered relevant, not only to the particular case, but as regards the general aspect of the case. I will certainly see what evidence is available

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In this case?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes.

GERMANY (SHIPBUILDING SUBSIDIES).

Mr.CLARRY: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the House any information in regard to the payment of subsidies by the German Government to the German ship-building and ship-repairing industry?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:: My hon. Friend will find in the library a paper which I sent there on 17th March containing information on the subject

BORDER STATES (BRITISH CREDITORS).

Mr.TAYLOR: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the border States, namely, Finland, Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, which constituted part of the old Russian empire, have yet effected a settlement with British creditors for any proportion of the Tsarist, Government debt or debts contracted by municipal authorities situated within their frontiers; and whether the benefits of the Overseas Trade and Trade Facilities Acts are available for these States?

Mr. GUINNESS:: No definite arrangements have been made whereby a proportion of the Russian Imperial Government Debt should be assumed by any of the States referred to. As regards municipal loans, I understand that no settlement has yet been effected with British holders of bonds of the loans issued by Riga and Vilna. The benefits of the Overseas Trade and Trade Facilities Acts are available for the States referred to, but in considering applications for the guarantee of loans raised by or for foreign Governments, the punctuality with which the obligations of these Governments and of the municipalities within their frontiers have been discharged is one of the factors taken into consideration by the Committee appointed under the Trade Facilities Acts

COMPANIES ACTS.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how long the Departmental Committee for the consideration of the Companies Acts has been sitting; whether the Committee has taken evidence representative of the particular complaints of small investors; and whether the Committee has come to any conclusions?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Committee held their first meeting for the taking of evidence on the 19th March last, and have already examined a number of witnesses. The evidence which is being taken deals with complaints of investors of all kinds. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative

Mr. ROBINSON: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to irregularities in respect of companies in the Lancashire textile industries floated in the years 1910 and 1920; and whether he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation to further protect the small investor?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Representations have been made to the Board of Trade with regard to matters affecting the formation of certain companies of the kind referred to, and the matter has been In ought to the attention of the Departmental Committee which is now sitting to consider what amendments are desirable in the Companies Acts. I think it would he premature to consider the introduction of legislation until the Committee's Report is received.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALKING-OUT UNIFORM.

Brigadier-General BROOKE: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the shortage of recruits both for the Regular and Territorial Army, he will consider the provision, of a really smart walking-out uniform?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I regret that money is not available for this purpose at the present time

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL ARSENAL, WOOLWICH (DISMISSALS).

Mr. SNELL: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that workmen employed in the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich are dismissed on reaching the age of 60 without pension or other means beyond a small bonus being provided for their support; that there is practically no chance of such men finding employment in private firms in competition with younger men; that private firms make physical capability and not age the test of a man's ability to continue his work; and as these men are regarded by the Government as too old to continue their work and 10 years too young to receive an old age pension, will he consider the possibility of either raising the age limit for retirement, or of instituting a pensions system which will meet the needs of those who are dismissed without proper provision being made for their future?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am aware that on reaching the age of 60 workmen at Woolwich Arsenal may be discharged on account of age. They may, however, be retained if circumstances permit up to the age of 65, but owing to recent reductions of work such retention has not been possible in every case. I regret that I cannot see my way to alter the rule in the direction suggested. With regard to the last part of the question, the possibility of establishing a pension scheme for ordnance factory workmen who are at present only eligible for gratuities on discharge, has been under discussion with representatives of the men concerned, but as the hon. Member is aware, it has been necessary to defer further consideration of the scheme until the autumn. The Pensions Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will have a considerable bearing on this aspect of the question.

Mr. SNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of the War Office to the matter with a view to seeing what can be done?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have promised to see what can be done.

Captain GEE: Is it not the fact that a similar answer to this question was given three years ago? Is it not also a fact that three years ago an extension of the age was refused by the War Office? Is it not a fact indeed that for political purposes the party of hon. Gentlemen opposite refused to accede to this pension scheme?

HON. MEMBERS: Not three years ago!

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS (INCREASE).

Mr. WINDSOR: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether awards of increase of pension under the Pension (Increase) Acts, 1920 and 1924, are only made from the date of application; and, if so, will he state the reason therefor, seeing that the Act of 1924 provided for arrears to be paid from the 1st July, 1923?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Awards under the Pensions Increase Acts of 1920 and 1924, were made automatically, as far as was possible, and the automatic awards were ante-dated to the dates from which each Act took effect. It still rests with persons who consider that they have a claim under either Act, and who were
not in receipt of increases, to submit their applications, and if the applications are delayed, arrears are not given as a matter of course, but depend on the nature of the evidence given in each particular case.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMALL-ARMS AMMUNITION (COST).

Mr. SNELL: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the average cost of standard small-arms ammunition produced in the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich is higher or lower than the price paid to private firms supplying the same class of stores?

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for War if the average cost of production of standard small-arms ammunition in the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich is higher or lower than the prices paid to private firms for the same class of stores?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS:: The cost of small-arms ammunition produced in the ordnance factories depends upon the proportion of overhead charges debited to the manufacture; any comparison with the price paid to private firms is likely to mislead unless this and other conditions are taken into account. The trade prices are not out of proportion to the ordnance factory cost

Oral Answers to Questions — QUEEN VICTORIA SCHOOL, DUNBLANE (COMMANDANT).

Mr. JAMES STUART: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Commissioners of the Queen Victoria School, Dunblane, were consulted as to the appointment of the present commandant of the school: if so, whether they approved of the appointment; and whether it was the original intention that the commandant should be either a serving or retired officer of a Scottish regiment?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Under the Royal Warrant, by which the school is constituted, the power of appointing the commandant is vested in the Secretary of State for War, and not in the Commissioners; but the names submitted by the Commissioners were carefully considered before the recent vacancy was filled. I am not aware that the intention was as suggested in the last part of the question.

Mr. STUART: Is not the right hon. Gentleman of the opinion that an officer of a Scottish regiment would be more in sympathy with the desires of Scottish regiments, who wish to get the boys leaving this school to join Scottish regiments?

Sir L. WORTH I N GTON-EVANS: I see no reason why they should not do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOOLWICH GARRISON (RECREATION GROUNDS).

Mr. SNELL: 20.
asked the 'Secretary of State for War if he is aware that two years ago the pathway leading across the barrack field from New Road to the south side of the front parade on Woolwich Common was closed to the public on the ground that this would enable two additional football and cricket grounds to be provided for the use of the soldiers stationed in the Woolwich garrison; that a large portion of the available space is now being prepared as a polo ground, which will prevent its use as cricket pitches for soldiers; and that there is resentment throughout the garrison at the proposal to allot a large slice of the restricted space available for recreation to the few officers who desire to play polo; and will he inquire whether the existing conditions can be maintained?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am aware that the footpath was closed in connection with the laying out of new football grounds and cricket pitches for the garrison. I am informed that permission for polo to be played on the barrack field has only been given under conditions which ensure that the recreational facilities for all ranks are fully maintained. The use of only one cricket pitch has had to be discontinued owing to the polo, and this has been reprovided close at hand at the expense of the Polo Club. I am not aware that there is resentment throughout the garrison against these arrangements.

Oral Answers to Questions — SINGAPORE GARRISON (COST).

Sir GERALD STRICKLAND: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for War what is the present cost of the garrison of Singaport, and the estimated cost of that required when the Singapore naval base is established?

Sir L, WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The estimated cost of the garrison of Singa
pore for 1925-26 is, as shown on pages 37 and 231 of Army Estimates, £383,000. As regards the future, I regret that I am unable to give any information at present.

Captain BENN: Have the Government formed no estimate of the increased charge that will fall on the Army on account of the new base at Singapore?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I regret that I am not able to give any information at present.

Captain BENN: Then are we to take it that the figures the Government have given as to the cost of this new project do not include anything for the Army, because no estimate has been formed?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Oh, no, the hon. and gallant Member must not assume that.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

Captain BENN: 24.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether in reference to the recent sentence on an old age pensioner in the Edinburgh Sheriff Court, his attention has been called to the fact that this woman, when making her original application for pension, accurately stated her means; that she was unaware that any supplementary statement of a change of means was necessary; that she received no warning that she was acting contrary to the law; that she is 76 years of age and whether, in these circumstances, he can remit the, fine to which she was sentenced and, in view of the provisions of the present Budget, will desist from claiming the arrears of pension alleged to be owing?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND(Sir John Gilmour): My previous decision was reached after inquiry into all the circumstances of the case. I have again considered the matter, but see no reason to depart from the decision that I would not be justified in advising any interference with the sentence. I have no jurisdiction with regard to the arrears of pension.

Captain BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the full circumstances of this case? This old woman, 75 years
of age, is earning a few shillings cleaning offices, and he is pursuing her and has had her sentenced in a court.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have gone very carefully into.the whole of the circumstances of the case, and, as things are, I see no cause to interfere.

Captain BENN: For the sake of reassuring public opinion, would the right hon. Gentleman make public the circumstances?

HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if this woman was allowed to plead her own case?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Every opportunity was given for putting her case.

Captain BENN: Is it not the fact that the old woman, when taken into court, heard very imperfectly what was going on? I have seen her and cross-examined her. Is it not the fact that this is a case which could be taken into sympathetic consideration?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am always ready to give the most careful consideration to any of these cases. I have twice investigated this case with all the records before me and have consulted my Law Officers on the point, and I am afraid I cannot alter my view.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the House some specific reason why this apparent injustice was inflicted on this old woman?

OLD AGE PENSIONER, EDINBURGH(PROSECUTION).

Oral Answers to Questions — LEWES SMALL HOLDINGS (ROADS).

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 25.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the Reef Farm, Lewes, Scotland, was taken over by the Board of Agriculture four years ago and 18 ex-service men placed there on small holdings; that, before these men took possession, they were promised two new roads, one connecting their holdings with the main road and the other road connecting with the nearest school: that these roads have not been made, the smallholders having to carry all their produce and necessaries and the children having to go to school through bogs and swamps; that they were
offered first less than £200 and, later, £800 to make the roads for themselves, the sums to include wages and payment for tools and blasting materials; and that these men have now informed the factor that they will pay no more rent or taxes until the roads are made; whether he can state what steps he will take to implement the promises made when the small holdings were offered; and how soon he can have the construction of the roads placed in the hands of contractors?

Sir J. GILMOUR: 15 men accepted holdings at Reef in the spring of 1921. The promise made by the Board of Agriculture at that time was a contribution of £550 towards the cost of constructing the access road and school path and of repairing a portion of a third road which provides access to two outlying holdings. The Board in 1924 offered to increase their contribution from £520 to £810, of which £70 is the estimated cost of the necessary tools and blasting materials. This offer has not been accepted by the holders, and work on the roads has not begun. I understand that the holders threatened to withhold payment of the rent due to their landlord and of rates and taxes.
I consider that, the offer made by the Board fully implements the promise given to the holders at their entry, and is an adequate contribution towards the construction of roads, which are wholly for the holders' benefit. In the circumstances I am not prepared to have the work put cut to contract.

Mr. MACLEAN: Are we to understand from that answer that the conditions under which these men received the holdings were that they were to make the roads themselves? Does not the secretary for Scotland see that these men cannot make these roads as satisfactorily as they would be made under contract. and will he, therefore, see that, instead of it, being done in this fashion. the work is given out to contractors, and so allow these people to prosecute the work on their small holdings?

Sir J. GILMOUR: In most of these cases the money has been given as a contribution towards helping them to construct these roads. It has been found possible in neighbouring places to do so, and I see no reason why it should not be done here.

Mr.MACLEAN: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter at an early date on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMALL HOLDINGS.

Mr. MACLEAN: 26.
asked the Secretary for Scotland the number of acres in Scotland purchased for small holdings since 1st January, 1919, and the total sum paid; and how much of that sum was paid for houses and furniture of the proprietors of the estates purchased?

Sir J. GILMOUR:: 335,814 acres have been purchased in Scotland since the 1st, January, 1919, for small holdings. Of this area, 226,707 acres were purchased outright by cash payments totalling £431,714. The remaining 109,107 acres have been acquired, as to 91,047 acres by terminable annuities, the annual payments totalling £17,390 106. 4d., and as to 18,060 acres by feu, the annual feu-duties amounting to £8,146 15s. 9d. In four cases of acquisition by feu buildings were purchased separately for cash amounting to £5,800, and in three cases proprietors' furniture was bought, costing £4,575 11s. 4d. No allocation of the purchase price as between land, buildings and furniture was made in the remaining cases

Oral Answers to Questions — CHIEF CONSTABLE, KILMARNOCK.

Mr. MACLEAN: 27.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received from the Joint Central Boa-rd complaints against the chief constable of Kilmarnock; and whether, in view of the fact that the Joint Central Board, after considering the complaints, deemed them sufficiently serious to remit them unanimously to the Scottish Office, he will institute an inquiry into all the circumstances?

Sir J. GILMOUR:: I have received from the Joint Central Committee of the Scottish Police Federation a representation of the nature indicated. I am making inquiry and will communicate further with the hon. Member

Oral Answers to Questions — TENEMENT, CAMLACHIE.

Mr. STEPHEN: asked the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the serious situation which has arisen in the Camlachie Division of Glasgow, where a tenement situated at
11, Greenvale Street, Mile End, has collapsed, causing serious injury to several of the tenants of the houses; whether he is aware that this occurrence took place in the early hours of the morning; that there is no alternative accommodation for people rendered homeless in such or other similar circumstances; and what steps he is prepared to take to assist the people rendered homeless to get houses and to inspect the houses in working-class districts with a view of preventing such accidents in the future?

Sir J. GILMOUR:: I have made inquiry into this case, and am informed that the property in question did not collapse. An adjoining property was being demolished by the corporation in connection with their alum clearance scheme. After demolition, it was discovered that there were no walls in the bed recesses in the gable of No. 11, Greenvale Street. One lodger received slight injury to his arms through falling plaster. The bed recesses have now been boarded up and the tenants are remaining in the houses. I am informed that instructions have been given by the corporation to avoid similar happenings in future demolitions. Buildings in Glasgow are regularly inspected by the Master of Works, and, if found dangerous, are reported to the Dean of Guild Court.

Mr. STEPHEN: I would like to ask whether the Secretary for Scotland will endeavour to see that these people living in these boarded-up houses will get the opportunity of a house under the Corporation at the earliest moment?

Sir J. GILMOUR: That is a matter obviously for the local authority.

Mr. BUCHANAN:: The statement has been made that these houses are inspected regularly. This is the only one of a fairly large number of similar happenings in Glasgow, and therefore either the inspectors are not carrying out their duties or certain facts are escaping their notice. What steps is the Secretary for Scotland prepared to take to see that similar happenings do not occur again in working-class areas in Glasgow?

Sir J. GILMOUR:: The matter has been brought to the attention of the local
authority, and I have received an undertaking from them that great care is going to be taken.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In this case, as in other cases, are the factors or owners extracting increased rents? Will the Secretary for Scotland make inquiry into that point and safeguard the rights of the tenant?

Mr. STEPHEN: Will the Secretary for Scotland use his influence with the local authority to see that provision is made for the people who have been placed in these circumstances, and will there also be arrangements made for compensation to these people for the shock they underwent?

Sir J. GILMOUR: That is a matter entirely for the local authority, but I will bring it to their notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — BURRAY HARBOUR (SUNKEN SHIPS).

Mr. MAXTON: 30.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if he is taking any steps to have the sunken ships raised which are now blocking the entrance to the harbour for the fishermen of the Island of Burray?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY(Mr. Davidson): I have been asked to reply. The answer is in the negative, and I have nothing to add to the full reply on this matter given by my predecessor to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on the 25th July last.

Mr. MAXTON: Am I to understand that the Admiralty refuse to do anything to make it possible for these men to earn their living in comparative safety?

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Is there anything in the answer which will prevent me presenting a petition on behalf of the inhabitants of the Island of Burray?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The answer to the hon. Member's question is that the experts sent to examine these wrecks came to the conclusion that there would be greater danger in attempting to remove them than exists at present.

Mr. BOOTHBY:: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an investigation was
made about six months ago, and that very different conclusions were reached compared with those reached in 1922, and that this has been a burning question now for three years?

Mr. MAXTON: Is this answer dictated by the fact that there are only 590 poor people on this island, and if this had occurred where there was a large commercial population interested these ships would have been removed long ago?

Mr. DAVIDSON: Certainly not.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIMARY SCHOOLS (WOMEN TEACHERS).

Mr. STEPHEN: 31.
asked the Secretary for Scotland the number of women teachers in primary schools in Scotland, and the number of those teachers that are graduates?

Mr. J. GILMOUR: The number of women graduates in primary schools in Scotland at 31st March, 1924, was 929 out of a total of 14,508 women teachers in such schools. I am glad of the opportunity the hon. Member has given me for correcting the figure which I gave in reply to a recent question by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

TWO-SHIFT SYSTEM.

Mr. CLARRY: 33.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether there are any restrictions or formalities in connection with the Ministry with regard to the working of two shifts below ground per 24-hour day?

The SECRETARY for MINES(Colonel Lane-Fox): There are no rules or restrictions which are special to working on a two-shift system by a colliery, though it is, of course, illegal for a workman ordinarily to be underground for more than seven hours in any one day.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is the Secretary for Mines aware that the miners have a rooted objection to working a double shift, because it disturbs their home Life, more especially under existing conditions when there is a shortage of houses?

Colonel LANE-FOX: That is not the question put to me.

Mr. BATEY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that it is quite a common practice to work, not two shifts, but three and four shifts in the North of England?

Colonel LANE-FOX: That does not arise.

LOW-TEMPERATURE DISTILLATION.

Mr. CLARRY: 34.
asked the Secretary for Mines what proportion of our commercially-available coal would be suitable for a process of low-temperature distillation and production of oil on an economically and commercially sound basis?

Colonel LANE - FOX: Further experience is required in the operation of these processes on a commercial scale before it will be possible to answer this question.

Mr. SPENCER: Are the Government going to make any further plans with a view to assisting this process in the hope that it may possibly become commercially sound in the immediate future?

Colonel LANE-FOX: Yes, I very much hope so.

Mr. MARDY JONES: What class of coal is likely to be used most successfully in these experiments?

Colonel LANE-FOX: It is exactly because we have not had sufficient experience that I cannot give a definite answer, and that is one of the subjects we are most anxious to explore.

Mr. JONES: Surely it is common knowledge in the mining industry that it is the most volatile class of coal alone that can possibly succeed in these experiments; and why cannot the hon. and gallant Gentleman give us the classes?

Mr. HARDIE: Is there any coal in Great Britain that cannot be reduced by distillation?

Colonel LANE-FOX: All coal will produce results by distillation, but the question is, what coal can be made a commercial success.

Mr. HARDIE: In view of the unsatisfactory answer, I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this subject on the Motion for the Adjournment at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROADS (BREAKING-UP).

Sir ARTHUR SHIRLEY BENN: 35.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been drawn to the lack of co-ordination between the Government Departments and local authorities in the breaking-up of roads; and if he can see his way to secure greater co-ordination in the future?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT(Colonel Ashley): Problems of this nature are dealt with by the London Traffic Advisory Committee as far as the metropolitan area is concerned.

Sir A. S. BENN: Are there any statistics as to the number of roads broken up in counties and in towns during the past six months after they have been made up and broken up not once, but twice?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir; I have no such statistics, and the only power which the Ministry has in dealing with these questions is under the Act passed last year, but that deals only with the metropolitan area.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to work the men on two shifts in order to facilitate the work?

Colonel ASHLEY: That does not arise on this question.

PICCADILLY S CBWAY.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport whether any progress is being made with regard to the proposal of a subway beneath Berkeley Street into the Green Park; and, if so, when it is expected that a decision will be reached?

Colonel ASHLEY: The proposal for the construction of a subway under Piccadilly so as to link up Berkeley Square and the Mall is still under consideration by the London Traffic Advisory Committee.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: When is it probable that a decision will be reached?

Colonel ASHLEY: I could not say.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied that when Berkeley Street is widened it will be quite sufficient for the traffic passing that way?

Colonel ASHLEY:: That is one of the aspects of the case now being considered by this Committee

CROSS ROADS (SIGN POSTS).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 37.
asked the Minister of Transport whether there is any money available in his Department to erect further sign posts at the many cross-roads throughout the country where none exist to-day; and, if so, whether place, names, and mileage distance can be painted on at the same time?

Colonel ASHLEY:: I am always willing to receive applications for assistance from highway authorities who are prepared to erect sign posts at important road junctions. The standard direction posts recommended by my Department give all the particulars which my hon. Friend specifies

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Are there not many hundreds of cross roads that are unmarked, and has not the right hon. Gentleman himself been lost many a time late at night because of the absence of such marks?

Colonel ASHLEY:: In my constituency the local authorities are so energetic that all the cross-roads are marked

Sir H. BRITTAIN:: Will the right hon. Gentleman pass that energy on to other constituencies?

SHEFFIELD-BASLOW ROAD (DANGEROUS BEND)

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: 38.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the number of serious accidents which have taken place at a dangerous bend in the main road from Sheffield to Baslow, between Doremoor and Foxhouse; and whether he will consider making a grant from the Road Fund for straightening the road at this point?

Colonel ASHLEY:: I am aware of the accidents that have occurred at this point, and officers of my Department have approached the highway authority concerned. Should a suitable improvement scheme be submitted by the authority in question, I would gladly consider the possibility of giving assistance from the Road Fund

Mr. ALEXANDER:: Was not this matter raised with the right hon. Gentle
man in 1923, when an accident took place, and could he now take definite steps to get the local authority to move in the matter?

Colonel ASHLEY:: Yes, I was considering it, and then there came a new Government, who did nothing

Marquess of HARTINGTON:: Will not common care on the part of Sheffield motorists who frequent Doncaster altogether prevent these accidents?

MOTOR OMNIBUSES (LICENSING).

Mr. ROBINSON: 39.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his Department is in favour of the withdrawal of the powers possessed by him under Section 14 (3) of The Roads Act, 1920, relating to the licensing of motor omnibuses; and whether he has asked the Municipal Tramways' Association to promote a Bill having for its object the repealing of the Section of The Roads Act, 1920, which provides for the final decision in these cases being given by the Minister?

Colonel ASHLEY:: In my opinion the powers of the Minister, under Section 14 (3) of the Roads Act, have served and continue to serve a most useful purpose, and the suggestion contained in the last part of the question is without foundation. As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, however, the whole arrangements for the licensing of omnibuses require reconsideration in view of the increased use of the motor omnibus for through routes, and the Committee appointed to consider the question will, I anticipate, report to me in a few days

ROAD-WIDENING SCITFINIE, SHOREDITCH.

Mr. THURTLE: 40.
asked the Minister of Transport if he has any information as to the cause of the delay in carrying out the proposed widening scheme at the junction of Old Street and Kingsland Road, Shoreditch?

Colonel ASHLEY:: I understand that the London County Council are taking all possible steps to expedite this improvement, which involves interference with two railway bridges and other structures. Arrangements have been concluded, I am informed, regarding the engineering details of the proposal, and there is reason to hope that the work may soon he put in hand.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

LIFEBOAT SERVICE, ORKNEY (TELEPHONE FACILITIES).

Sir R. HAMILTON: 41.
asked the Postmaster-General whether representations have been made to him as to the advantage that would be obtained by the lifeboat service in Orkney if a night-bell were to be attached to the telephone for calling-up the operator at St. Mary's Post Office on the mainland; what would he the cost of such attachment: and whether there is any reason why it should not he made?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have been asked to reply. It has been represented to me that it would be an advantage if the bell to which the hon. Member refers were fitted, and I have had inquiries made into the matter, but I am advised that the bell in question is not required for life-saving purposes.

Sir R. HAMILTON:: Will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to hear such representations as I can make on the subject?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:: What I think would be more useful, in the present instance, would be if the hon. Member would visit the Marine Department and see the whole report made by the Inspector-General on the subject, and I shall be very glad for the Inspector-General to receive any representations that he may like to make

SOUTHWARK (WALWOICIH ROAD AREA).

Colonel DAY: 42.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the serious inconvenience caused to business houses in the Walworth Road area of Southwark through the need of a post and telegraph office in that locality; that during recent years the number of business premises has greatly increased and is likely to continue; and, since the post and telegraph offices are so far away from this important centre, will he take steps to establish a post office with full facilities in this area?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL(Viscount Wormer): There are four post offices in the Walworth Road between the Elephant and Castle and the southern boundary of Southwark, a distance of less than a mile, and at
three of these telegrams can be handed in. I am not aware that the number of offices or the facilities provided are inadequate to reasonable public requirements.

MOTOR MAIL SERVICE, BAGDAD DAMASCUS.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 44.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the motor service now operating between Bagdad and Damascus is used for the conveyance of His Majesty's mail; and, if so, whether It. receives any subsidy?

Viscount WOLMER: The motor service now operating between Haifa and Bagdad via Damascus is used for the conveyance of mails in both directions between this country and Iraq. The service is performed under contract with the Post Office of Iraq, to which the British Post Office makes payment at a poundage rate for the mails which it sends.

WESTBURY DIVISION (TELEPHONE FACILITIES).

Captain W. SHAW: 62.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will consider the installing of telephone facilities in those villages of the Westbury division which are situate two miles and over from any telegraph or railway amenities?

Viscount WOLMER: I am prepared to provide public telephone call office facilities in any rural district where a demand exists for such service. Regard must, however, be paid to financial results, and, in eases where the call office is likely to be unremunerative, it is necessary that the local authority or persons interested should furnish a guarantee to defray the difference between the receipts and the annual expenses involved in providing the service. As regard exchange facilities, in any district remote from an existing exchange a new exchange is opened provided that eight subscribers can be obtained at rentals of £2 per quarter for circuits within a mile and a half of the exchange, and that the cost of connecting the new exchange to the general trunk system is not unduly high. If my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish the names of the villages in the Westbury division which he has in mind, I win have specific inquiries made.

Captain SHAW: While thanking the Noble Lord for his answer, may I ask if
he realises how much behind other countries, and especially America, we are in regard to postal facilities in country districts?

ANGLO-CONTINENTAL TELEPHONE LINES.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 65.
asked the Postmaster-General to what extent it is proposed to give English girls an opportunity of studying the French telephone 'system and vice versa; and whether the same experiment is to be made between London and other foreign capitals?

Viscount WOLMER: A scheme has been arranged under which English telephonists will visit Paris and French telephonists will visit London for short periods. The scheme applies, so far as the English telephonists are concerned, only to -those engaged on the operation of Anglo-Continental telephone lines which involve:a speaking knowledge of French. It is not at present in contemplation to arrange for English telephonists to visit ether foreign capitals.

Sir H. BRITTAIN:: Will my Noble Friend consider extending these opportunities to Brussels, between which capital and London there is very large telephonic communication?

Viscount WOLMER: I have nothing to add to my answer.

BIRMINGHAM, LETTER DELIVERIES.

Mr. DENNISON: 63.
asked the Post-master-General if he is aware that the morning delivery of letters in the Northfield area of Birmingham is not completed before 9.30 a.m.; that an extensively signed petition has been received by his Department praying for an improvement; and, in view of the large number of business people resident in the area, whether steps will be taken to treat Northfield on similar lines to the suburbs of London?

Viscount WOLMER: I have seen the recent correspondence which the hon. Member has had with my Department on the subject and the petition to which he refers. I am assured that the delivery is normally completed between 8.50 a.m. and 9.0 a.m., and that the' arrangements compare favourably with those in similar localities. I regret that it would not be possible to accede to the hon. Member's request- at present.

Mr. DENNISON: Is the Postmaster-General in a position to receive representations to prove that letters are not delivered in my own case before 9.30 in the morning?

Viscount WOLMER: I should be glad to receive any representations the hon. Member can bring, but my information is that only a very small fraction of the letters are delivered after 8.30.

WIRELESS RECEPTION (EAST LONDON).

Mr. BARNES: 64.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that owners of crystal sets in the East End of London are experiencing difficulties in the reception of London programmes; and whether he will make representations to the British Broadcasting Company to improve their service?

Viscount WOLMER: Complaints have been made that the reception of broadcast programmes in the East End of London has been more difficult since the recent transfer of the London Broadcasting Station to a new site. Representations have been made to the British Broadcasting Company, who state that while satisfactory reception is still possible with efficient crystal sets up to a distance of 20 miles from the new station. they hope, by an alteration in the transmitting apparatus, to increase the strength of the signals in East London at an early date. I think it only fair to add that reception in London on the whole has been improved by the change.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

RELIEF WORKS, M I DDLESBROUGH.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the Unemployment Committee of the Middlesbrough Corporation have decided that, owing to the heavy capital liabilities incurred by them on unemployment relief works and in view of the high local rates which are crippling industry, they cannot undertake any further schemes unless the Government will increase their percentage grant; and, seeing that there are over 9,000 unemployed in Middlesbrough and the number is increasing, what steps does the Government propose to take in this matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR(Mr. Betterton): I have been asked to reply. No communication announcing such a decision has been received from the Middlesbrough Corporation. As recently as the 8th April, a letter was received by the Unemployment Grants Committee from the corporation saying that they had been considering what further useful schemes could be put into operation, and submitting one for approval.

Mr. THOMSON:: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the statement contained in the question is correct, and that the Unemployment Grants Committee decided that they could do no more; and, in view of that, is not the Government able to give some further assistance to prevent unemployment works stopping entirely in that district?

Mr. BETTERTON:: With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, I think that he put that question to the Minister of Health the other day, and I would refer him to the reply. With regard to the first part of his supplementary question, I am not aware of that, and I should have to make further inquiries

BIRTH-RATES AND INFANT MORTALITY.

Mr. GROVES: 72.
asked the Minister of Health if he has any information showing that the large industrial towns with the greatest degree of unemployment show the highest birth rates, the greatest degree of overcrowding, and the highest mortality among infants; and what steps he proposes to effect alteration?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The figures for certain districts, with the highest average degree of unemployment for the 12 months ended February last, indicate that in the majority of these districts the birth-rate and the infant-mortality rate for the year 1924, and the percentage of population living more than two persons to a room, according to the Census returns for 1921, were above the average for England. There is not, however, sufficient correspondence between the figures to warrant any general. conclusion. The. Government are exploring all possible means of reducing unemployment, overcrowding and infant mortality

EXTENDED BENEFIT, WEST HAM.

Mr. GROVES: 78.
asked the Minister of Labour the numbers of persons who were in receipt of extended benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Acts in the. West Ham area, Stratford and Canning Town Exchanges, separately, for an average week or month of 1923 and the figures of those in receipt of such benefits in those areas at present?

Mr. BETTERTON:: I regret that the particulars asked for by the hon. Member are not available

Ex-APPRENTICES (HIS MAJESTY'S DOCKYARDS).

Major HORE-BELISHA: 79.
asked the Minister of Labour how many ex-apprentices there are who were discharged from His Majesty's Dockyard in 1922, and who are now registered upon the books of the Devonport Employment Exchange, stating their trades?

Mr. BETTERTON:: The information desired by the hon. Member could only be obtained by detailed inquiry at the Devonport Employment Exchange and by inquiry of each applicant personally, who appeared to have been discharged from the dockyard in 1922, to ascertain whether he was an ex-apprentice. I do not think the labour involved would be justified by the result

Major HO RE-BELISHA: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware of the extreme anxiety caused amongst these ex-apprentices and that preference has been promised in finding them work? What action does his Department propose to take to do that properly?

Mr. BETTERTON:: That, I think, is the subject of the next question by the hon. Member

Major HORE-BELISHA: 80 and 81.
asked the Minister of Labour

(1) whether he is aware that the Admiralty has undertaken that ex-apprentices in His Majesty's dockyards shall be given preference for re-entry whenever opportunity arises; whether he can state if the local Employment Exchanges in Devonport and Plymouth are following out this policy; and, if so, to what extent?
(2) whether he is aware that there are a number of ex-dockyard shipwrights and other apprentices who were dis
1671
charged from His Majesty's dockyards in 1922, and that many of these lads have had no work since, although their skill is of the highest order they being picked men; that although these young men have registered at the Employment Exchange they rarely succeed in getting employment even as labourers; and whether he will give special instructions that these men should be taken on at the earliest possible opportunity lest their health and skill should suffer from their anxiety and lack of employment?

Mr.BETTERTON: I am aware that discharges from the dockyards took place in 1922, and some of the men discharged may not have found skilled employment since. The question of re-engagement at the dockyards is a matter for the Admiralty and I am assured that the claims of ex-apprentices are and will be given full consideration as vacancies occur.

Major HORE-BELISHA:: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that these ex-apprentices are registered at the Employment Exchanges, and it cannot be a question for the Admiralty if they are so registered. Are there no arrangements in force?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have answered that in the last part of the question. l have assured the hon. Member that their claims will be given full consideration, and there is close co-operation between the. Employment Exchanges and the dockyard authorities.

EAST AFRICA COMMISSION.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if it is proposed that there should be a Debate on the Report of the East Africa Commission?

The PRIME MINISTER(Mr. Baldwin): An opportunity for discussion of this Report will arise on the Colonial Office Vote.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the probable saving in Poor Law expenditure which will result from the new pensions scheme
during the present financial year, and during each of the next four financial years?

Sir K. WOOD: I would ask my hon. Friend to await my right hon. Friend's statement on the Second Reading of the Pensions Bill, in which he hopes to deal with the probable effect of the scheme on Poor Law expenditure.

Mr. FORREST: 74.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in framing the Contributory Pensions Bill, he has considered the desirability of extending the age limit for children's allowances to 16 in those cases where it is desired to continue the child's education; and, if so, what, were the scheme so modified, would be the additional annual cost?

Sir K. WOOD:: The question of the age at which children's benefit should terminate was, of course, carefully considered by the Government with reference to the relevant factors, financial and other, and their decision is embodied in the Bill. It is not possible to give the figure desired by the hon. Member, as no estimate can be formed of the extent to which advantage would be taken by parents or guardians of the suggested relaxation of the age stated in the Bill

GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE (TAXATION).

Captain CAZALET: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a divergence of views exists as to the accuracy of the official figures given in regard to relative taxation in his country and in France: and whether he can state upon what basis these figures were calculated?

Mr. GUINNESS:: I understand that the hon. Member is referring to a controversy in France due to calculations published there. and showing the conversion of francs into sterling at the, pre-War rate of exchange for the purpose of comparing French with British tax receipts. The figures which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave in reply to the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) on the 24th February, were/ based on the official publications of the Government concerned in each case, and were given in their own currencies. I do not understand that their accuracy has been questioned.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the French also contend that their taxation is high in relation to their taxable capacity?

Captain GARRO-JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that many of these difficulties arise from the reluctance of France to face her obligations to this country?

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr.T.THOMSON: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government propose to remove the means-limit disqualifications from all existing old age pensioners and from those who have become pensioners under the Acts of 1908 to 1924?

Mr. GUINNESS: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 7th May to a similar question by the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle).

Mr. THOMSON: Are we to assume, from that answer, that it is only in the case of insured persons coming on to old age pensions that the means limit is abolished?

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated cost of granting to all persons at present receiving an old age pension the full 10s. without any deduction?

Mr. GUINNESS: It would be impossible to disregard means limits for existing pensioners and to maintain them for future pensioners (other than those who will come under the new Insurance proposals). The cost of abolishing the means limit would be about £15,000,000 a year to commence with, and larger sums in later years.

Mr. GROVES: 73.
asked the Minister of Health whether, concerning old age pensions granted by local committees which are afterwards made the subject of appeal by the local pensions officer, in the cases where the decision arrived at confirms the position and recommendation of the local committee, pensions are payable from the date on which they were granted by the local committee?

Sir K. WOOD: If on appeal to the central authority a claim is allowed, the pension is payable as from the first Friday after the receipt of the original claim or from the first Friday after the claimant becomes entitled to a pension, whichever is the later.

SUEZ CANAL (BRITISH DIRECTORS).

Mr. BECKETT: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the duties and total emoluments of the Government representatives on the directing board of the Suez Canal?

Mr. GUINNESS: The duties and emoluments of the directors nominated by the British Government are the same as those of the other directors of the company, who number 32 in all. The directors receive from the company 2 per cent. of the net profits, and fees for attendance, and their remuneration, consequently, varies considerably from year to year. The total sum divided among the 32 directors in 1923, the last year for which particulars are available was 5,281,239 francs.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who are the directors nominated by the British Government'?

Mr. GUINNESS: I should like notice of that question.

TATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY.

Mr. THURTLE: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of money raised by the Tata Iron and Steel Company which has been guaranteed by the British Government; if his attention has been drawn to the low price at which the debentures of this company are standing; and if he is satisfied that there is no danger of lose being suffered by the Treasury as a result of the guarantees given in respect of the capital of this company?

Mr. GUINNESS: No guarantee under the Trade Facilities Act has been given to the Tata Iron and Steel Company, and the second and third parts of the question, therefore, do not arise.

CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: 56.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether there exists any Return brought up to date of persons receiving pensions on the Civil List from the Consolidated Fund, or whether the annual lists of new pensions are the only recent returns available; and, if this is the case, whether he will furnish a complete list down to 1025 of such persons and their pensions?

Mr. GUINNESS: No complete up-to-date Return is available, but annual lists of new pensions are issued. I doubt whether the value of a complete list would be commensurate with the cost of its preparation and publication.

Sir C. OMAN: Is it not for the benefit of this House and of the public that the total should be known?

Mr. GUINNESS: I think we might be able to give the total, but to give a complete list would involve a computing bill of at least £50.

INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE (LAPSED POLICIES).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 57.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a number of lapsed policies will lose the protection of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act after the 7th June next; and will he take steps to ensure that the industrial assurance companies notify their policyholders of the necessity of sending in their claims before that date?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 58.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has considered the position of policyholders of industrial assurance policies at present protected by the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act; if he is aware that, unless money due under these policies, of which the amount is believed to be very large in total, is claimed by 7th June, 1925, it will automatically become the property of the insurance companies; and whether he is taking or proposing to take any steps in the matter?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 59.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he ls aware that claims due to poor people
from industrial assurance companies under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Acts must be submitted by the 7th day of June, 1925; and what steps he is taking to make this fact widely known to the poor people concerned?

Mr. GUINNESS:: I would refer the hon. Members to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T, Thomson) on the 10th March, of which I am sending them each a copy

Mr. THOMSON:: Arising out of the reply to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, would he further consider whether the Treasury could not make announcements themselves in the Press as to the Emergency Powers Act ceasing early next month, in order that these very poor people shall not lose large sums of money?

Mr. GUINNESS:: I do not know if the hon. Member is aware that the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, who is the Commissioner under the Act, has already issued instructions for publication in the local Press, and has taken further steps to draw the attention of those concerned to the necessity of sending in their claims

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nearly £5,000,000 is here involved, most of which would go to poor people if they were aware of it, and that, if they are not aware of it, and do not make application for it by the 7th June this year, they will lose it and the assurance companies will get the lot?

Mr. GUINNESS:: I quite agree as to the necessity that these poor people should know their rights, but this matter was considered when the Industrial Assurance Act was passed, and it was decided by Parliament that the best way of drawing their attention to their rights was to leave the details of the arrangements to the Commissioner under the Act, namely, the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, who has carried out his duties.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In order to meet special cases, is there any reason why these assurance companies should not be required to notify these people themselves of their rights, seeing that, as their agents call once a week to collect premiums, it could quite easily be done?

Mr. GUINNESS: I believe that that was discussed when the Bill went through Parliament, and the Chief Registrar has laid upon these companies the obligation of seeing, not only that their agents put up posters in their offices referring to this matter, but that they draw the attention of those assured to their rights.

Mr. KIRKWO0D: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is mostly poor people who subscribe to these societies, and they do not go near the offices, so that it would be of no use to put up bills, but the Government have the power, if they care to exercise it, to get the assurance companies to notify every one of the individuals concerned?

Mr. MACQUISTEN:: Why should these companies be allowed to do the same thing for which Horatio Bottomley got into trouble?

CURRENCY NOTES.

Sir FRANCIS WATSON: 60.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury

(1) what consideration the Bank of England have given, or agreed to give, for the privilege of issuing Treasury notes or currency notes of low denomination to take their place;
(2) who will benefit by the natural wastage of the new notes proposed to be issued by the Bank of England?

Mr. GUINNESS:: As explained in the Currency Committee's Report, the transfer to the Bank of England of the present currency note issue cannot take place for some time. Before the legislation necessary for this purpose is introduced, the terms on which the Bank will undertake the issue will be discussed

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: As this is matter of some importance to a large group of people in one particular division, may we take it for certain that there will be no radical change in the method of producing these Treasury notes in the immediate future?

Mr. GUINNESS:: It must be a considerable time before the Government can be in a position to come to any decision in this matter

Mr. LEES-SMITH:: When the right hon. Gentleman says the terms will be discussed, does he mean discussed in this House?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL ESTATES (RENTS)

Colonel DAY: 71.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has yet received any representation from the London County Council upon the question of reducing the original rents of post-War houses upon their estates; and the amount of the reduction, if any, that has been made?

Sir K. WOOD: I will send the hon. and gallant Member particulars of the proposals made by the London County Council for the reduction of rents. These proposals have been approved by my right hon. Friend's Department.

DECONTROLLED HOUSES (RENTS).

Captain GARRO-JONES: 75.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has taken any step to deal with authenticated instances of profiteering in the rents of decontrolled houses?

Sir K. WOOD:: On the information before my right hon. Friend, he does not consider that the charging of excessive rents for decontrolled 'houses is so prevalent as to call for special Governmental action

Captain GARRO-JONES:: In view at' the fact that the Minister continually repudiates these admitted facts, will he take action in authenticated cases?

Sir K. WOOD:: The hon. Member must not take it that these are admitted facts. I have stated that there is no sufficient evidence to justify action, though there might probably be in connection with sub-letting

Mr. MACQUISTEN:: Is it not a fact that there are far more cases of profiteering by tenants at the expense of their sub-tenants?

Mr. MACLEAN:: Has the hon. Gentleman's 'attention not been drawn to the large number of advertisements by estate agents asking premiums for houses, and is not that a violation of the Act?

REGISTRARS OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS (FEES).

Major RUGGLES-BRISE: 76 and 77.
asked the Minister of Health

(1) whether he has under consideration a revision of
1679
the scales of the remuneration of registrars of birth and deaths, such scales having undergone no revision since 1937;
(2) whether he will take into consideration the reconstruction of the service of registrars of birth and deaths in connection with the administration which will become necessary for dealing with the pensions insurance scheme?

Sir K. WOOD: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my right hon. Friend's reply of the 7th instant to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and the hon. and gallant Member for the Gainsborough Division.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

APPEALS.

Colonel DAY: 66.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is prepared to allow the reopening of cases where the right of appeal to the House of Lords Appeal Tribunal has expired through lapse of time?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS(Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): My right hon. Friend would have no authority to adopt this suggestion. I would, however, point out that, as has been repeatedly stated in this House, arrangements are in force for dealing with exceptional cases in which evidence is produced to show that the existing decision, either on entitlement or assessment, is seriously erroneous.

Mr. BECKETT: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take steps to make sure that all soldiers who have missed their right of appeal should be notified of the steps they should take?

Mr. THURTLE: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean that the evidence to be submitted is not necessarily new evidence, but may be the old evidence put forward in a new form?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: ; No, new evidence to show that there has been some mistake in the original decision. As to the other point I should like to communicate with the hon. Member, I am not sure that I grasp his point.

Mr. SPENCER: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Advisory Council which has been set up for Pension purposes, composed of men of all parties, strongly deprecates the attitude of the Ministry upon this point?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot now answer that question.

CENTRAL ADVISORY COUNCIL.

Mr. TAYLOR: 68.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has received a resolution from the Midlands advisory council protesting against the procedure followed at the meeting of the central advisory committee; and, if so, whether it is proposed to make any alteration of the procedure at future meetings of the central advisory committee?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to the question addressed to him on the same subject by the hon. and gallant Member for Rhondda on the 7th instant of which I am sending him a copy.

EX-SERVICE MEN (INDUSTRIAL TRAINING, SCOTLAND).

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 67.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many ex-service men in Scotland have been found eligible for industrial training; how many have yet been trained or have started a course of training; how many men who have completed their course of training have found suitable employment.; and what steps are now being taken to arrange for the training of men for whom no provision has yet been made?

Mr. BETTERTON: 1 have been asked to reply. Since August, 1919, about 8,540 ex-service men have been accepted in Scotland as eligible for industrial training under the Ministry of Labour. At the end of April, 1925, 383 were still in training and 38 were on the waiting list for training. Precise figures are not available of the number of ex-trainees now in employment, but a census taken about two years ago showed that less than 10 per cent. of the men who had been trained were then unemployed. Arrangements will be made for all disabled ex-service men in Scotland to receive training who are found to be eligible.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is any special action being taken by th Ministry to provide employment for those who have had a course of training?

Mr. BETTERTON: Everything is done that we can do. The answer shows that we have not been unsuccessful.

DRAINAGE (RIVER WITHAM).

Mr. TAYLOR: 69.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will make inquiries into the Delph and general drainage system from Branston Booths to the River Witham. and the failure of the responsible authority to carry out essential works; whether he is aware that the Delph is now choked with weeds and has not been cleaned within the memory of any person in the district; that land adjacent to the Delph is flooded every year, and sometimes three times a year, so that it is impossible to work the land until April or May, thus rendering it impossible to raise a profitable crop; and that a considerable drainage rate is levied in this area; whether the Delph is under the jurisdiction of the Washingborough and Heighington Drainage Board; and, if so, will he make representations to that authority so that the Delph may be cleaned?

Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON(Controller of the Household): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend has no recent information regarding the condition of the drainage system referred to by the hon. Member, which, by virtue of the provisions of special Acts of Parliament passed in the early part of last century, is under the jurisdiction of the Washingborough and Heighington Drainage Trustees. The Ministry, by an Order made in June last, authorised the trustees to raise a loan to provide a new pumping plant for the more effectual drainage of the district. My right hon. Friend has no direct powers of intervention, but he will cause inquiry to be made and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

MERCHANT SHIPPING(EQUIVALENT PROVISIONS) BILL

Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill,not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow

PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Advocates Widows' Fund (Widowers' Provisions) Crder Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

Valuation (Metropolis) Amendment Bill, with Amendments

VALUATION (METROPOLIS) AMENDMENT BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 175.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. WILLIAIG NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Brigadier General Sir Henry Page Croft, Mr. Wardlaw-Milne, and Mr. Hugh Morrison; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Campbell, Lieut.-Colonel Stott, and Mr. Roderick Wilson

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Merchant Shipping (International Conventions) Bill [Lords]) Mr. Sandeman
Allen, Sir Herbert Cayzer, Sir Burton Chadwick, Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, Mr. Fenby, Captain Macmillan, Sir Malcolm Macnaghten, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Stamford, and Colonel Woodcock

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Lieut.-Colonel Sir Frederick Hall; and had appointed in substitution: Major Astor.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Public Health Bill): Captain Bourne, Mr. Smedley Crooke, Mr. Fenby, Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle, Mr. Grundy, Mr. George Hirst, Mr. Cyril Lloyd, Sir Douglas Newton, Lord Eustace Percy, Sir Philip Richardson, Dr. Watts, Mr. Wallhead, Mr. Cecil Wilson, Sir Charles Wilson and Mr. Womersley

Reports to lie upon the Table

Orders of the Day — CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS) BILL

Mr. CLYNES: For the guidance and information of the House, may I ask you, Sir, whether you can make any statement as to the apportionment of time for the Amendments to the first Order?

Mr. SPEAKER: In the first place, 1 should like to say that the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) has courteously offered to postpone his introduction of a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule in view of the short time available. I have had the advantage this morning of a consultation with the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) and the Lord Advocate, to see if I could understand beforehand what were the main subjects which it was desired to discuss, and if the time could he shared between the different subjects. The result of that consultation is that I suggest to the House that three main subjects can be grouped under leading Amendments, the first dealing with land charges and cognate matters, the second dealing with Exchequer grants and other matters cognate thereto, and the third dealing with the repair of buildings and other things which can be grouped with that. If an hour be taken over each of these subjects, including the Division, that would leave an hour for the proceedings on the Third Beading and the subsequent Division. It would mean four Divisions in all. The hon. Member for Motherwell tells me that within the restricted time, that would seem to be the most satisfactory way of dealing with the subject. There is one small point, which need not take many minutes I understand, to be raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik), coming after the three to which I have referred. If that he agreeable to the, House, it would mean that we should take the Division on the first group at about five o'clock, on the second at. about six o'clock, the third about seven o'clock, and the Division on the Third Reading about eight o'clock, leaving the Teachers Superannuation Bill to come on at 8.15, as arranged
Bill, as amended(in the Startling Committee),considered.

NEW CLAUSE. (General saving for superiors.)

Nothing in this Act shall affect or be deemed to affect the right of superiors of the sites of the churches mentioned in the Ninth Schedule hereto, where the superiorities are not held by or on behalf of town councils, to payment of their feu duties from the parties in whom the dominium utile of said sites is vested by this Act or otherwise, and to all other rights and privileges vested in such superiors prior to the passing of this Act[Mr.Ford.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. FORD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

I understand that this Clause will be accepted by the Government, and that there is no opposition to it

Question put, and agreed to

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Payment of standard stipend.)

Mr. BARR: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, to leave out the words
" is constituted a. real burden or." I wish, first of all, to thank the hon Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) for his goodness in withdrawing for the pre sent from his opportunity to speak on the Motion which he has down on the Paper, and to allow us to go forward with the consideration of this Bill. We understand that the first arrangement was that a whole sitting until 11 o'clock at night should he devoted to the Bill. We have, however, readily conformed, in the present situation, to the curtailed arrangement, and I am sure that we shall suit the convenience of the House by making our speeches short.
The first Amendment to which you referred, Mr. Speaker, is in relation to the land charge. This Bill is sometimes spoken of as if it were an agreed Bill It is an agreed Bill as between the Church of Scotland and the heritors, and it has a certain silent and approving approbation from the United Free Church of Scotland. But in regard to this particular matter of the land charges, opinion is very keenly divided, even in that Church. At the last General Assembly a motion was made to the effect that if this land charge were persisted in it would give rise to grave practical difficulties and might imperil union itself
A permanent burden, as in Clause 12, is placed upon the land.
Teinds, or, as they are known in England, tithes, were put first at one-tenth of the fruits of the soil. In the year 1629, for convenience, one-fifth of the land was taken as equal to one-tenth of the fruits of the soil. Now it is proposed to make this a charge on the land itself, as the highest and best form of security: a charge on the land for alI time in the interests of a particular church. To that we take the strongest exception. It is levied on heritors of all creeds, and it is land which we hold to be ultimately the common possession of the people, and the taxation from which should certainly not be applied to any sectarian or sectional purpose, but to purposes common to the whole of the people. It is certainly not a new burden, but it is a burden in a new form, and w e hold that it is a burden which should never have been imposed, and that the churches should rely on their own resources and not on public funds of any kind
Although the charge has existed for centuries, we dare to challenge it, and we dare to challenge it in the particular form in which it appears as a charge for all time on the soil. The Federation of Landowners were candid enough to say that their reason for not redeeming this charge was that they would stand in a better position in time to come when land legislation might be proposed, and that if a future Government were to cast envious eyes on the land as a source of taxation they would be less likely to do it if they found a perpetual charge already on the land. They were candid enough to say that it might be a temptation to a future Government. I am not sure it will be a temptation to the present Government to put a tax on the land.
We on these benches have no objection to land taxation for great public purposes. When I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day asking that someone should name any particular article or articles that would better suit his purpose for taxation, it occurred to me that a land charge if adapted to public purposes would better suit his object than the net-work of silk in which he has entangled himself, and much better than
this web of Penelope. We are told that Penelope wove a web every day and unravelled it every night, and had always to begin again. If I may use another classical illustration, we remember the story of Dejanira, who sent a white silken shirt to Hercules. Although she sent it as a charm, there had been a poisoned arrow put into it, and when he clothed his flesh with the garment the arrow penetrated parts of his body and he, was in most fearful pain. He tried to wrench it off but was unable to do so, and it ended his earthly career.
I would take the opportunity of saying that a tax on land might suit the purpose of the Chancellor of the Exchequer better than some of the silk duties we have been discussing. if you are to put a tax on land you must devote the revenue derived from it to public and not sectional purposes. The teinds with which we are dealing were from the first recognised as having certain public purposes in view and not only to support the Ministry. Before the Reformation, they were recognised by the Roman Catholic Church as having three purposes in view, to support the Ministry, the education of the people and the maintenance of the poor. John Knox put forward this public purpose in the first hook of discipline. In the year 1696, it was stated in the great Education Act that the use of the teinds for the. purpose of providing schools and education was a proper pious purpose. We know also that the support of the poor was one of the subjects that John Knox put in the very forefront as the chief of the objects to which these funds might be devoted. In this Bill we find that the last remnants of responsibility for the poor are taken away in the Clause, which says that reports are no longer to be given in regard to the spending of the church door collections.Wehave precedents in the settlement of the Irish Church and the Welsh Church, in which provision was made both for education and the poor. In this Bill, the whole is scooped into the coffers of the Church. We object strongly to a land charge being devoted to a sectional purpose and not going to the general needs and common good of the people.
4.0 P. m.
There have been certain changes made in this Measure during the Committee stage. Those to whom payment of less than Is. is due are to he exempted in future. We are grateful even for small
concessions, but this concession, without saying anything derogatory to it, is not a concession that takes any very substantial form. I think the Lord Advocate told us that 111 returns he had received from various parishes gave the sum of £164, and, if these were typical of all the parishes of Scotland, it would work out at something like £1,200 for the whole. In the second place, those who were liable for a sum between 1s. and £1 are to redeem compulsorily their payments on an 1s years' calculation. We do feel with regard to that particular class of men, that while they are getting, I grant. fairly generous arrangements in regard to the matter of years, in compulsory redemption they are having imposed upon them what the large heritors refuse to impose upon themselves. When this Measure, or a similar Measure, was before the. House of Lords last year, the Duke of Buccleuch spoke in the strongest terms against compulsory redemption. He said the land lords could not afford to pay for it, and that indeed it would be the final ruin. We have, however, been ruined so often, that we are not greatly impressed by that. Then he said it is highly objectionable to impose redemption by compulsion upon unwilling holders. If it is highly objectionable to impose it on large heritors, it is equally, or more, objectionable to impose it on small heritors, and he went on to say:
 Many farmers have bought their farms and many smallholders have acquired their holdings. You have to see that no injustice is done to these smaller men.
Lord Younger, on the same occasion, said:
 To add to the present burdens of landowners the obligation to redeem the teinds is a monstrous proposal.
Speaking of the small heritor, he said:
 The imposition on these unfortunate people of the compulsory obligation to redeem is a provision which. I hope, will not receive the assent of your Lordships' House.
Yet, it seems, it is to receive the assent of this House. We do say that there is an injustice done to the smaller men. There is one further objection. A new valuation is to be taken under Clause 16 and the Sixth Schedule. We were told the other night by an hon. Member that
many of these men preferred to be tenants rather than peasant proprietors, but many, as we know, have been obliged, against their will, to purchase their holdings, and, under the provisions of the Schedule, unless a man can show that he or his predecessors in the farm which he now holds have made certain improvements in the course of the preceding 20 years—improvements of a permanent nature or of any other kind—he may be brought in for a payment of one-fifth of the value as entered in the valuation roll. That is to say, a smallholder, whose holding is valued at £100 a year, who may have been paying £1 or £2 towards the support of the Church, may now be brought in under this new valuation to the extent of £20 per annum for all time
We understand that the Government, and those behind them, are the friends, as they often represent, of the agricultural interest. They are the friends of industry. Their policy is to safeguard industry. We were safeguarding the silk industry yesterday, and you are going to safeguard the agricultural industry by allowing the imposition of £20 per annum on a small peasant proprietor, whose whole holding is valued at no more than £100 per annum. We are reminded of the words that John Knox used in regard to this very imposition, in which he said it was so oppressive on the tillers of the soil, that it was a wonder the sun did not withhold its light and heat to the earth
There is one more objection in regard to the way in which this land charge is to be carried out by compulsory powers. The Lord Advocate, quite candidly, told us that if you had a land charge at all, you must have some power of enforcing it. You must have a Sheriff Court. process; you must have resort, if need be, to the impounding of goods or to some other forcible way of compelling contributions. I think it was Tertullian, one of the earliest and greatest of the Christian Fathers, who said it is not the business of religion to force religion, and because of this Clause, as throughout this Measure, the whole system is built on the application, if need be, of force to compel payments, not from the members even of a particular church, but from those who are without its borders, because it is a compulsory charge laid on land. and because it seems opposed to the fundamental principles of political and
religious equality, we take exception to this land charge, and I move the Amendment accordingly.

Mr. HARDIE:: I beg to second the Amendment
Under the arrangement, I will not detain the, House for long, but I want to point out that, in dealing with the Church of Scotland Bill, those who arc not acquainted with the facts, might take it that this discussion and this Bill had some credal or religious basis. I want to make it clear, arid anyone who cares to read the reports of the Scottish Standing Committee will see, that neither creed nor religion came into the discussion. It is simply a. question of goods. The question is not that a creed or religion shall be furthered in its work in Scotland. All that was wanted in Committee upstairs was a division of the loaves and fishes, one section trying to transfer their responsibilities to another. But where the whole thing is off the rails, so far as the sense of justice is concerned, is that any section of a community should have the right to inflict its burden upon another unwilling section of 'the community. We were told at the beginning that this Bill was going to be as the cement in the building, to unite all the stones together, and give us one great united edifice, and that all things wouldgowell in the religious world so far as Scotland was concerned. Yet every day in the Committee showed some point where some new interest was being sought or combated, so that in that way there is nothing left of the real spirit that was said to be in the Bill
Why should any section of a community seek to impose its will upon another, especially when it comes to the question of making that section pay for something with which it does not agree? The charge' on the soil is not only a first charge, but it is going to be used as a huge lever in order to raise, if possible, all the values connected with these things called soil and land, for there was a great difference of opinion even in this House not long ago as to what was land and what was not land, and the whole purpose of what we are discussing now is that, by legal enactment in this House, we are going to throw overboard that which was the greatest principle underlying this or any other church. That is to say, there were definite purposes for which the
moneys accruing from these holdings were to be applied. We have got away from the poor box at the door of the church, because the parish council has taken that up, we have got away from the education of the church largely because the education authorities are looking after that, and one would have thought that people with the church interests in their minds, if not in their hearts, would have seen to it that the initial purpose for which the church was built, that of the strong being looked after by the weak, would not have been thrown over by the British Government. I should have thought that principle would have appealed to every Member of this House.
When you come to the Clause dealing with stipends between one shilling and one pound, and the 18 years' calculation as a. basis, this is called a great cam- promise, but I can see nothing in the way of compromise, because it does not matter how you reduce that which is wrong. It is wrong to take even the portion to which you reduce it. If it be wrong, why take any portion? Then the new forced valuation—because that is what it amounts to—on the part of the farmer is going to lead to this great increase, and the farmer who, during the Way years, was compelled to buy the land at a very high price, in addition to having paid a high price for his land, is now going to he compelled, by practically the same Parliament as that which compelled the compulsory, purchase of his land, to stand this further increase. With all the mock talk in this House about doing something for the agriculturist something for the allotment holder, something for the smallholder, at every chance. Ion. Gentlemen opposite have they always get right down to the land, and the ruin working upon it. If there had been the slightest evidence of any adherence to the principles of the Church of Scotland, hon. Members opposite would hive been ashamed

Mr. KIDD:: The two hon. Members who have just spoken have referred to the case of the farmers who acquired their land and seemed to suggest that these farmers who are called on to pay teind in the same way as other people are subject to special hardship. That, of course, is clearly an unsound argument. All land in Scotland has to be acquired subject to teind, and these farmers have acquired their land subject to teind
which is just as clearly defined, and as much a burden on the land as any mortgage or any other burden. If I acquire my land subject to a mortgage I pay a correspondingly smaller price for the land, making allowance for the mortgage. The same principle affects land purchase in connection with the burden of teind. There is no discussion on Scottish theology raised by this Bill, and it is a mercy for this House that there is not. The Bill is a very simple matter. It seeks simply to regularise the property of the Church of Scotland. The State gives its sanction to any property, whether that of a private individual, a voluntary association, or the Established Church, and the only difference between the property of the Established Church of Scotland, and any other property is this, that the one property is more ancient than the other. [HoN. MEMBERS: "It was stolen!"] I do not think that the hon. Members who use that term have made any very critical study of history or otherwise they would have known that the rights of the Church of Scotland come before the rights of the landowner, historically, and that there is no title so full and so complete as that of the Church.

Mr. MAXT0N:: Admitting that the lights of the Church of Scotland are antecedent to those of the State, may I ask whether the rights of the Presbyterian Church, are antecedent to the rights of the State?

Mr. KIDD:: The ordinary rules of succession apply, and the Church of Scotland has just the same right to its property that any of its predecessors had. All that this Bill seeks to do is to say we quite recognise that the Church acquired its property at a time when land or the fruits of land was the only form of property. The position of the Church's property therefore, in comparison with other forms of property, seems to be somewhat archaic. We now seek to get rid of archaic forms and to harmonise Church property with ordinary ideas of property. Who has a right to interfere with this? The debtor in the transaction is the heritor and the creditor is the Church, and even the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) will admit that the debtor and creditor in this par-
titular matter are in agreement. When they are in agreement, who will challenge the agreement to which they have come? All that we are doing here is to modernise the property of the Church. That transaction is being carried through, as between a debtor and creditor in agreement, and there the matter begins and ends.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I support the Amendment because I believe in religious equality, because I believe that every person should pay for the propagation of his own religious views, and because this Clause, and the proposals of the Bill, will compel those who are opposed to the Church of Scotland to pay for the religious views of the Church of Scotland. I also support the Amendment because I believe that no one should be compelled to pay for the propagation of religious views with which he is not in agreement. I also support the Amendment because, white we agree that a tax on land is just, the proceeds of any tax on land should be used for the benefit Of all, and not merely for the benefit of a section of the community. I support. the Amendment because this Bill creates vested rights in the land on the part of the Church of Scotland and will make more difficult the nationalisation of the land when we have the power, as I believe we shall after the next election, to nationalise the land. I am opposed to private ownership of the land, and I believe that we ought. to nationalise the. land, and though private ownership is had, it will not make it good merely because the Church of Scotland gets private ownership so far as land is concerned. There have been members of the Church of Scotland, and even preachers in the pulpits of the Church of Scotland, who have been opposed to private ownership of land or the placing of burdens on land which would merely benefit the Church of Scotland. I may quote from Brewster's sermons, of which we heard in the Committee stage. He says:
 It is the right of all to be fed from the produce of the earth. God the sovereign proprietor, who is no respector of persons, has given to all an equal right, and no one can show from Him any better title than any other to appropriate and monopolise the land. Some indeed claim a preferable right in virtue of laws made by themselves or by those 'from whom they inherit or derive their possessions. These laws confer a legal right, and that right should he allowed so long as it rests on the law of the
land, but these laws in most cases were made without the concurrence of the other inhabitants who as God's creatures were the rightful owners of the soil.
[HON. MEMBERS: "What has this to do with the Bill? "] This has everything to do with the Bill, because my point is that if private ownership of land was created by those most interested in it, as it has been, without consultation with the rest of the inhabitants of the land, then this I3ill and this Clause are being passed through the House without the consent of the Scottish people. If there were a plebiscite of the Scottish people taken at the present time, I am satisfied that neither this particular Clause nor the Bill itself would receive the support of the majority of the people of Scotland. For these reasons, and believing that the people of Scotland are hostile to the provisions of the Bill, I support the Amendment which would avoid placing a burden on the land for the benefit of a section of the community instead of for the benefit of the whole of the people.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. W. Watson): It is evident that there is a root difference between hon. Members who support this Amendment, and the Government and the majority of Members on this side of the House. A great deal of it depends on the difference of view or of knowledge with regard to the historical position of the matters with which we are dealing. It is beyond dispute in my opinion that, at any rate since the Reformation, these teind rights, which are an estate in land according to our law in Scotland, have been recognised as the property of the established Church of Scotland. This was recognised in Acts of Parliament immediately after the -Reformation, and it was also recognised by the Crown when they made provision for a competent stipend to ministers being given out of these teinds in the seventeenth century, and this right to a stipend has been enjoyed by ministers of the Established Church of Scotland ever since the middle of the seventeenth century. I can quite understand, even if I do not agree with them, the views which, for instance, the hon. Member for South Midlothian (Mr. Westwood) expresses with regard to the nationalisation of the land, and the fear that they may he prejudiced at some future date. which may never arrive because of the particular provisions which
we are considering at the present time. I can understand it, though I do not agree with him. I do not know that I even agree that it will necessarily make it more difficult, but the point is that the effect of the provision which' we are here making is merely to put into more convenient, simple and practical form the right, which for so long has been recognised and carried out, of the established Church of Scotland.
Consider the situation. At the present moment this liability to pay a competent stipend rests on the estate of land. Its value has to be arrived at year after year according to the fluctuating price -of victuals, and unless and until you can get rid of these fluctuations, by turning this annual liability into a fixed money amount, you cannot change into a more simple form the nature of the liability on the estate of land. It is because everyone must admit the great advantages of the earlier part of the Bill, which provides for the commutation into a fixed annual money amount of the stipend due, that we are able to propose that the liability, instead of being a fluctuating burden on the fruits of the land, should become a fixed money burden on the fee, as we say, o: the land or on the land itself. For practical purposes it does not make very much difference in its results to the landowner. He has got the same liability in the end. We are able, because of these provisions, to turn it into this much simpler, more normal and usual form of burden on land. So much for the general view. The provisions for a land charge which are being considered do not affect the small heritors. They are not within the purview of the Amendment which we are considering at present. I understand that they will be considered in another group. With regard to the larger heritors—over the £1 of annual liability —redemption as regards them is only optional.

Mr. JOHNSTON:: On a point of Order, so that there may be no misunderstanding. Was there not an understanding on these benches that the smaller heritors should he dealt with in the first group?

Mr. SPEAKER:: I think that that was so. It seems to me to be a convenient group.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I understood that the reference to the smaller heritors was going to be left to the third group by the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson).

Mr. JOHNSTON:: It is well to have this matter cleared up. The understanding was that the first discussion should be upon the lands of the Church, that the second discussion should be upon the grant from the State, while the third discussion should centre round the repairs to manses and buildings, and that the groups of Amendments dealing with these matters should be taken in that order.

The LORD ADVOCATE: That is so, and I apologise for not having realised the fact. I will take the Bill as it stands now with regard to the stipend and the liability of the small heritor. Where his annual liability is under £1 there is no provision for his liability being made a charge upon the land, the reason being that when you get down to these small sums the expense and inconvenience involved in turning them into a land charge makes it necessary to find some other form of dealing with that liability. Therefore, it was obvious that the only way of dealing with it would be by redemption. This matter was very carefully considered last year when the earlier Bill was in another place, and, as a result of that consideration, redemption was made compulsory below 21, but on mitigated conditions; that is to say, the number of years' purchase was reduced to 18 with an alternative option either to pay the 18 years' purchase at once or spread the payments over a period of 18 years.
On this point may I remind those who were members of the Committee, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife put to me a case which he had received from a correspondent suggesting apprehensions which were very natural on the basis of the figures used. It was suggested that this man, whose existing liability was half-a-crown a year, would he run in for something like 241 per year as a result of this provision. I have since communicated with the right hon. Gentleman and shown that the position is very different indeed. Obviously his
alternative is either to pay 18 times half-a-crown, which is 45s., and get rid of the liability all at once, or else to spread it over a period of 18 years, in which case the amount would be under £4. That would be the total of his liability on the alternative basis. I, hope that may clear up any apprehensions which may exist based on erroneous calculations of that kind. It seems to the Government that the proposals regarding small heritors are very fair, and it should be borne in mind that under concessions which were given by the Government and which are embodied in the Bill now, those whose liability is under Is, have complete exemption from any payment. I do not want to go into details as to the reasons for that provision, but I think everybody will agree that it is of advantage to the Church, even though some pecuniary sacrifice may he involved. It is difficult to get exact information, but any information which I have points to the suggestion that there is a certain pecuniary sacrifice. On the other hand, in view of the great importance of Church union generally, of the progress of the Church and of the relations between the Church and the people, I think the Church will gain by this in the ultimate result, instead of losing. One is wise to take a broad view of these matters
I desire to take one or two of the detailed points in the speeches to which we have just, listened. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) referred to what he called a new valuation to be made under Clause 16. I do not quite appreciate the reason for that phrase. I should explain to the House or remind those Members of it who know already, that ever since the early part of the seventeenth century it was open to heritors or owners of estates of teinds to have them valued. A great many of them did so in that century and their successors scored tremendously in these later years by having very low valuations. There has been a continuous current of valuations right down to the present. time. Under the existing law the same method of valuation is prescribed as that which is adopted in Clause 16 and the relative Schedule to which the hon. Member for Motherwell referred. There is another very small point in connection with which I think the hon. Member fell into a slight error. Not only are all improvements made within the last 20 years by the heritor and his predecessors to be taken
into account, but also any other improvements made at any time, the benefit of which still subsists in the property. That is the ordinary businesslike method of putting a value on a property of any kind—to take the value at the time—and it is quite right not to take into account an improvement the effect of which has been exhausted. A closer perusal of the Schedule will satisfy the hon. Member that the point is fully covered. I would also ask the hon. Member to bear in mind that the valuation there dealt with, is not the valuation of the stipend but is the valuation of the whole estate of teinds. Even to-day, in many cases, the liability may extend to the whole valuation of the estate, of teinds, but not necessarily so. The two things are not necessarily equivalent.
I regret very much that the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) seems to take the view that all the churches concerned in this Bill, and the Government for that matter, are only concerned with what he called the loaves and fishes. I demur to that suggestion. The Church of Scotland throughout its history, and at the present moment, has not used and is not using its property as its own personal and selfish right. The Church of Scotland has it in trust for the people of Scotland. It has used and exercised that trust as such, and it is in order that the Church, growing as it has been in the favour and affection of the people of Scotland for many years past, may be enabled more efficiently and more economically to administer the property which it so holds in trust, that the present Bill has been promoted. The hon. Member for South Midlothian referred to a plebiscite of Scotland. I differ entirely from him as to what the result of such a plebiscite would be. We have had a plebiscite on several occasions of the Scottish representation in this House, and we know where the majority is—and a very substantial majority too.[HON. MEMBERS:" In the last Parliament? "]No, in this Parliament, on the Second Reading of this Bill. I would remind the House of one other point which justifies what I have just said. The membership of the Church of Scotland has increased during the last 80 years, since the disruption, at a pace even greater than that of the population of Scotland. I feel convinced that within a few years we shall have an
incorporating union with the other great Presbyterian Church and possibly other Presbyterian Churches, and we shall then have at least 95 per cent. of the
Presbyterian people in Scotland within our fold.I mention these figures in reply to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Midlothian, and I ask the House not to accept this Amendment.

Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON:: The Lord Advocate, in reviewing the points involved in the group of Amendments now under ccnsideration, has not said a single word regarding one which stands in my name, and which is as follows: in Clause 14, page 10, line 6, after "stipend" to insert
 which heritor or person shall not include any heritor or person who has not hitherto been called upon to make any payment in respect of such stipend.
He has not dealt with that matter at all. As to the other point with reference to the small heritor whose payment ranges between 1s. and —The said arrangements had been made for the redemption of those payments, because they were so small and the trouble they involved was so great, that the only arrangement which could be made in the case of heritors of this class was that there should be redemption on an 18 years' basis. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also referred to a case which I brought to his notice while the Bill was in Committee. This was the ease of the heritor—who by the way was a member of the Church of Scotland—and who was greatly concerned about his payments to the Church being increased under the terms of the Bill. He said his payment had been 2s. 6d. a year, but that under the terms of the Bill he Was likely to be asked for £4 a year. The Lord Advocate disputed that assertion and asked me to send him the communication, which I did, and I have now the reply of the Lord Advocate. It appears it is not a question of 18 years' purchase at 2s. 6 d. a year, which is the present payment of the heritor in question, but 18 years' purchase at 4s. 9d. per year.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The alternative is to pay at once 18 half-crowns, which is 45s., or if the heritor prefers to spread the payment over 18 years, he can do so, but in that case there is added an amount for sinking fund of 2s. 3d.

Mr. ADAMSON: On the Lord Advocate's own showing it is 18 years at 4s. 9d. which the man has to pay, and not 18 years at 2s. 6d. I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd), in the course of his contribution to the Debate, to say that these terms had been agreed upon between the heritors and the Church, and that it was not the business of this House to come in, as he put it, between debtor and creditor. That may have been the case so far as the large heritor is concerned, but it is certainly not the case with regard to the small heritor. As I pointed out in Committee, there was no machinery at all by which the opinion of the small heritor could be taken. It is true that Doctor Whyte and Mr. MacMillan, in the course of the negotiations, considered the position of the small heritor, but they considered his position purely and simply in the light of their own ideas and not in consultation with the small heritors. If this Bill passes through the House in its present form, it will undoubtedly rope in thousands of small heritors who hitherto have not been called upon to contribute a single farthing. That is the position in which this Bill leaves large numbers of people in Scotland. It is true that the Lord Advocate brought in an Amendment during the Committee stage which he said would wipe out all the persons that I had in view in tabling my Amendment. I dispute that. I do not believe that the Amendment that he inserted in the Bill in Committee, the Amendment which pleased everybody whose payment is less than one shilling., wipes out the parties

whom I seek to cover by my Amendment. I believe that large numbers of heritors will be brought in, in terms, by this Bill to make a payment for the first time, and I consider that that is a very unfair position in which to place them. I see the Lord Advocate showing signs of dissent, and it may be that he and possibly some others do not agree with me, but I think it is a very unfair position in which to place these persons

I have always understood during these Debates that all that the Church wanted was to secure what it considered to be its property and its rights, and that it did not want anything else than it was getting under present conditions, but unless there is provision made for those who hitherto have not contributed a single penny to the funds of the Church, it will he getting more than it has been getting under existing conditions. I need not go into the reasons why large numbers of small heritors have never been called upon to pay. I gave some of the reasons in Committee, and I do not intend to do it here during the Report stage, when time is very limited, but there is the position, that there is a considerable number who will he roped in, in terms, by this Bill, who hitherto have not paid a penny, and I think it very unfair, and that it will lead to a considerable amount of dissatisfaction when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes. 272; Noes,118

Division No. 96.]
AYES
[4.50 p.m


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
 Briggs, J. Harold
Charterls, Brigadier-General J.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Briscoe, Richard George
Christie, J. A


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Brittain, Sir Harry
Clarry, Reginald George


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Centr'l)
Brocklebank, C. E. R
Clayton, G. C.


Allen, J.Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby)
Brooke, Brigadler-General C. R. I
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Cohen, Major J.Brunel


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Brown, Maj. D.C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Atholl, Duchess of
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Cope. Major William


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Couper, J. B


Barclay-Harvey, C. M
Buckingham, Sir H
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Bullock, Captain M
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Burman, J. B
Crook, C. W


Barry, Sir George
Burton, Colonel H. W
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)


Bethell, A
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Betterton, Henry B
Campbell, E. T
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Llndsey, Galnsbro)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cautley, Sir Henry S
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Blundell, F. N
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Davidson, J,(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)


Brass, Captain W
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovll)


8rassey, Sir Leonard
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N (Ladywood)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
 Rentoul, G. S


Dawson, Sir Philip
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Insklp, Sir Thomas Walker H
Rice, Sir Frederick


Drewe, C.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Duckworth, John
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Jacob, A. E.
Roberts, Samuel (Herelord, Hereford)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Ropner, Major L


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Jephcott, A. R.
Ruggles-Brlse, Major E. A.


Ellis. R. G.
Kidd, J. (Linllthgow)
Rye, F. G.


Elveden, Viscount
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Samuel, A. M.(Surrey, Farnham)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lamb, J. Q.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Savery, S. S.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lister, Cunllffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)Shaw,
Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Falls, Sir Charles F.
Loder, J. do V
Shepperson, E. W.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Looker, Herbert William
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Fermoy, Lord
Lougher, L.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Fielden, E. B
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Fleming, D. P.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Skelton, A. N.


Ford, P. J.
Luce, Major-Gen.Sir Richard Harman
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Forestler-Walker, L
Lumley. L. R
Smith-Carington, Neville W


Foster, Sir Harry S
Lynn, Sir Robert J
Smithers, Waldron


Foxcroft, Captain C. T
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Somerville, A. A.(Windsor)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
 Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Ganzonl, Sir John
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Wlll'sden, E.)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Maclntyre, lan
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Glbbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
McLean, Major A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Gllmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
 Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Gower, Sir Robert
Macquisten, F. A
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W.H.


Grant, J. A.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gretton, Colonel John
Malone, Major P. B
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
 Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Margesson, Captain D,
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Tasker, Major R. Inlgo


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Meyer, Sir Frank
Templeton, W. P.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Harland, A.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Harrison, G. J. C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Waddington, R.


Hartington, Marquess of
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
 Ward, Lt.-Col.A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Harvey, Ma|or S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Haslam, Henry C.
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hawke, John Anthony
Nelson, Sir Frank
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Headiam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Neville, R. J.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wells. S. R.


Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
 Wheler, Major Granvllle C.H.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
 White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Nuttall, Ellis
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hennlker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Oakley, T
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Ormsby-Gore,Hon. William
Windsor-clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hilton, Cecil
Pennefather, Sir John
Wlnterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wise, Sir Fredrlc


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Phillpson, Mabel
Wolmer, Viscount


Holland, Sir Arthur
Plelou, D. P.
Womersley, W. J.


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Pitcher, G.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Homan, C. W. J.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Hopkins, J. W. W
Preston, William
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S
Ralne, W.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Ramsden, E.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Rees, Sir Beddoe
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hurd, Percy A.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Major Sir Harry Barnston and Mr.


Hutchison, G.A.Clark (Midi'n & P'bl's)
Remnant, Sir James
F.C. Thomson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Cluse, W. S.
Fenby, T. D.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R
Forrest, W.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Compton, Joseph
Gibbias, Joseph


Attlee, Clement Richard
Connolly, M.
Gosling, Harry


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Cove, W. G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Dalton, Hugh
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Barnes, A.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Groves, T.


Barr, J.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Grundy, T. W.


Batey, Joseph
Day, Colonel Harry
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)


Briant, Frank
Dennison, R.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)


Broad, F. A.
Dunnico. H.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Buchanan, G.
Edwards, John H. (Accrlngton)
Hayday, Arthur


Hayes, John Henry
Oliver, George Harold
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Darby)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Owen. Major G.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Palln, John Henry
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Hirst, G. H.
Paling, W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan)
Thurtle, E.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Tinker, John Joseph


Johnston, Thomas(Dundee)
Potts, John s.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Sprlng)
Varley, Frank B.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rlley, Ben
Viant, S. P.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Ritson, J.
Warne, G. H.


Kelly, W. T.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W,R., Elland)
Watson, W.M. (Dunfermllne)


Kennedy, T.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lansbury, George
Scrymgeour, E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Lawson, John James
Sexton, James
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Lee, F
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Westwood, J


Lowth, T
Sitch, Charles H
Whiteley, W


Lunn, William
Siesser, Sir Henry H
Wignall, James


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Smillie, Robert
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Mackinder, W
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Maclean, Nell(Glasgow,Govan)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


March, S
Snell, Harry
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercllffe)


Maxton, James
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Bcnjamin Charles
Windsor, Walter


Montague, Frederick
Stamford, T.W.
Wright, W.


Morris, R.H.
Stephen, Campbell
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sutton, J. E


Murnln,H.
Taylor, R. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—




Mr. Hardie and Mr. Kirkwood.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, after the word "redeemed," to insert the words" or extinguished."

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to

CLAUSE 12(Charge to be substituted for liability, for stipend exceeding one pound.)

Amendment made: In page 9, line 1, leave out from the word "value" to the first word" the "in line 3, and insert instead thereof the words:
(as shown by the teind roll of a parish) of the stipend exigible from the teinds of any lands of a heritor in that parish which are comprised in one entry in."—[The Lord Adrocate.]

CLAUSE 4.—(Provisions where stipend exceeds one shilling but does not exceed one pound.)

Amendment made: In page 10, line 31, leave out from the beginning to the word "does" in line 34, and insert instead thereof the words:

5.0 P.M.

" Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding Section of this Act, where the standard value (as shown by the teind roll of a parish) of the stipend exigible from the teinds of any lands of a heritor in that parish which are comprised in one entry in the teind roll."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE15.— (Extinction of liability for stipend not exceeding one shilling.)

Amendment made: In page 11, line 21, leave out from the word "value" to the

first word "the" in line 23, and insert instead thereof the words:
(as shown by the teind roll of a parish) of the stipend exigible from the teinds of all the lands of a heritor in that parish, whether those lands are comprised in one or in more than one entry in."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 19.— (Provisions as to certain payments out of the Consolidated Fund.)

Mr. MAXTON:: I beg to. move, in page 12, line 41, to leave out from the word "thenceforth" to the end of line 43, and to insert instead thereof the words:
cease and determine, but subject always to the following provisoes:

(a) In the case of payments made under Sub-sections (1), (21, and (6) of the, Seventh Schedule, the payment shall continue as heretofore until the occurrence of a vacancy in the church and parish in respect of which it is made, but shall cease as from the date of such vacancy and shall be no longer payable, and no minister who shall be elected and appointed to fill the said vacancy shall be entitled to any payment from these sources:
(b) In the case of payments made under Sub-section (5) of the Seventh Schedule the payments shall continue so long as the precentors and ministers occupy their present respective offices and charges, but shall in each case thereafter cease, and their successors in office shall not he entitled to any payment from this source."

This is a most important Clause, because it decides what the general public
of Great Britain have to pay for the maintenance of the Established Church of Scotland, which is attending to the spiritual welfare of only a negligible majority of the people of Scotland. The defence for continuing these payments which has been made previously in this House and in the Standing Committee, is that the sums proposed to be paid under this Clause have always been paid for considerable periods. They are detailed on page 25 in the Seventh Schedule of the Bill. At least, certain of them are. In the Clause, however, these are the words used:
 The charges and payments described in the Seventh Schedule to this Act and any other payments—
The "other payments" are not specified, but presumably there may be some others which are not detailed. In the Seventh Schedule we have a fair number detailed. There are six all told, and it is proposed, as the Clause stands, to continue the payment of these amounts indefinitely for the future, or, alternatively, under the Clause, for the Treasury to commute them into one capital payment. It is very questionable whether any of these payments out of the Consolidated Fund was ever justifiable in the past. It is questionable whether they were justifiable at the time of their institution, when the Church of Scotland was the Church of Scotland and dealt with the spiritual and theological affairs of a big proportion of the people of Scotland. Certainly nowadays, when the people attached to the Established Church of Scotland are a minority even of those who believe in the Presbyterian faith, and when all the Episcopalians in Scotland, without considering the huge mass in the kingdom, all the Roman Catholics, and the, Baptists, and the Wesleyans, and the Free Thinkers, and the Jews, who are a considerable portion—the Polish people—and that very considerable and increasing section of the Scottish population who find their real ethical influence in attendance at the meetings organised under Socialist auspices—when all these are considered, it is very questionable whether nowadays it is a fair thing to come to the British House of Commons and ask the whole of the English people, the Welsh people, and the whole of the Scottish people, to pay sums annually or to commute those annual sums into a lump-sum payment, for the maintenance
of a religious faith under particular forms and methods of Church government which at the very best are accepted and believed in only by a minority of the Scottish people, and are accepted in any enthusiastic spirit only by a minority of that minority
Our proposal is not a proposal to abolish these payments altogether, but merely a proposal to safeguard the public purse. We say that these payments have been made, that certain persons' interests are involved in the payment of these moneys out of the Consolidated Fund; that there are salaries of certain clergymen involved, the wages of certain lay workers about certain churches involved; and that it is, perhaps, a reasonable thing that. this House and the British Treasury should say, "Well, these people during their lifetime have been used to receiving these payments and it might inflict considerable hardship on individuals if the House of Commons decided to cease these payments now." But it would not be unreasonable for this House to say, "These sums have been paid in the past and there are certain living people who are getting their livelihood from the payments in the present. We will continue the payment during the lifetime of existing holders, but when the existing persons drawing these sums are gone, the payments should cease," so that the burden on the. Treasury of Great Britain would be a steadily diminishing one year by year. The original reason for the payments has long since gone nut of existence. Even the Lord Advocate would not attempt to defend them now.

The LORD ADVOCATE: Yes, every one of them.

Mr. MAXTON: Surely not? I wonder if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is going to defend
the annual payment under Royal Warrant to the Minister of Dunkeld and Dowally of an amount. fixed by reference to Fiare Prices chargeable and payable as aforesaid? 
What justification is there fat picking out Dunkeld from all the parishes of Scotland and giving it special direct payment out of the Consolidated Fund? I have had a steadily increasing admiration for the Lord Advocate's forensic capacity in the Committee upstairs, and I hope that the future is going to add to it; and if he is going to get up and
defend that payment, I would have to start again at the bottom and work upwards in my admiration of him. I shall go through the various points item by item and make a strong appeal to the serried ranks of episcopalians who have gathered for this discussion to safeguard the interests of the taxpayers of Great Britain. I want them to remember that all these things are a tax upon industry. Every additional payment here conies out of industry. I see the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) present, and I know that on this matter he has very strong feeling. If British industry is to be able to maintain itself among the other industrial nations, every unnecessary burden must be removed from the shoulders of British industry. I urge that this is imposing an unnecessary burden on industry, if you begin payment for something for which you have no right to pay, for something which is of no value to the community as a whole. If it were of some value spiritually, I would be prepared to give it my heartiest support, but it has no value commercially, or ethically, or spiritually, or educationally, or in any other way
In the old days the Church of Scotland did have some interest in the educational welfare of the people. It has not now; the education authorities look after education. It has no interest in the care of the poor; the parish councils look after them. For the Employment Exchanges and other bodies the Church has no responsibility. Then there is the registration of births, marriages and deaths. Again a public official, a registrar, looks after that. work. There is only one thing that the Church is prepared to look after now, and that is the spiritual welfare of the people of Scotland: and I have indicated hare. and all the Scottish Members know, that the Church does not look after a very big proportion of the people of Scotland so far as their spiritual interests are concerned. And that section which it does look after it does not look after well. Yet we are asked to make continued payments from the British Treasury to this Church which has gradually got rid of all its functions and is now attending to a very much smaller number of people. We are asked to continue a payment to look after the spiritual interests of a minority of
the people of Scotland in the parishes of Dunkeld and Dowally. I know where Dunkeld is, but I never heard of Dowally until I saw it mentioned in the Schedule. I do not know that the people of Dowally will be prejudiced spiritually among all the other people of Scotland, and I certainly do not want them to be placed in any favoured position. I would like to hear, in answer to an English heckler, say, in Bermondsey, a Conservative Member of this House justify his vote of this money to maintain the spiritual welfare of the people of Dowally parish.
There is another point that arises. There are six payments mentioned in the Schedule. One of them is—
The annual sum of twelve thousand pounds on account of augmentations of stipends chargeable on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, under the Teinds Act, 1810, and the Teinds Act, 1824.
There we have specific reference to specific Acts which have established this principle of the minimum wage for Scottish Established Church clergymen. Every one knows that I am strongly in favour of the principle of the minimum wage, either for manual workers or for so-called brain workers. I am absolutely in favour of the principle. This payment was established under the Teinds Act, 1810, and the Teinds Act, 1824. But the position now is entirely different, and £12,000 goes no distance among the total amount required to bring all the clergymen of the poorest parishes of Scotland up to what one considers a decent standard of living; other sums have to be paid out of the general fund of the Church of Scotland in the hands of the General Trustees after the passing of this Bill. There is no special reason why this £12,000 should be paid for these purposes, or why the Church, out of the very handsome sum they are to get under the general Clauses of this Bill, out of the advantages they are gaining by having a fluctuating grain stipend turned on to a good solid gold standard basis, and by the advantages of economy that they expect to get through the union of the two great Presbyterian Churches, which we are told—although there is no evidence in support of it anywhere—is the necessary consequences of the passing of this Bill—there is no reason why the Church should not be able to get on very well.
I do not know about it. I have examined the columns of the "Missionary Record," the official organ of the United Free Church of Scotland, to which I am a regular subscriber—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! "]—the official organ, I mean, not the Church. I have examined every issue of that "Missionary Record" during the period that this Bill has been before this House, and I have seen no reference in any page of it, either to the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Bill, or to the question of Church union. I have questioned very closely the visitor of my particular congregation, who intrudes herself periodically into my domestic circle on behalf of the United. Free Church of Scotland, as to the steps taken in this particular congregation—in which I have a certain intellectual interest. I have tried to discover what steps have been taken, so as to find out the wishes and the views of the congregation in reference either to this Bill before the House, or the question of union, and she has assured me that, so far as she, a very intelligent and average member of the Scottish Presbyterian Church knows, there has never been any meeting of that congregation, big or little, public or private. to consider the question of Church union or of the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Bill, and the provisions of it.
I am making these points for the benefit of the members of the Church of England in this House, who are not particularly interested in the matter, but have been persuaded by the right hon. Gentleman who sits on the Front Bench here that the people of Scotland are enthusiastic and shouting and demanding this Bill, and also Church union. We say that there is no public opinion for it at all in Scotland. There are one or two very clever Church dignitaries who, I may say, have a political capacity that is on as high a level as their theological capacity, who have steadily impressed upon the Members of this House that the Church of Scotland is wanting it, and they trying to impress that upon the Church of Scotland also—that the Church of Scotland is wanting it. Up to now they have not. succeeded in impressing either this House, or the Church of Scotland that either want it.
When I speak of the Church, I mean the big mass of the ordinary people who
go from Sunday to Sunday and put their pennies and halfpennies into the plate. They do not want this Bill at. all. Yet we are asked to pay out of the Consolidated Fund—that is, the people of England and Wales are asked to pay—£12,000 to them under the Teinds Act of 1810 and the Teinds Act of 1824 payments, perhaps justified in those days in view of the various social activities that the Church of Scotland carried on, but which are to-day absolutely unjustied because they have got rid of a huge proportion of their social responsibilities, and they are only dealing with the minority of the people. But this is a- good Clause compared with some of the others in the Schedule because it has some legal justification. The Lord Advocate was able to cite the Teinds Acts of 1810 and 1824 and to put forward that this was quite legal and constitutional, and that everything was all right there. But take paragraph (2). It reads:
(2)The annual sum of £5,040 on account of stipends chargeable and payable as aforesaid under the Act 5, George IV, chapter 90.
The date of George IV is, unfortunately, not given, but I know that there has been a considerable time intervening between the present monarch and the time of George IV; therefore, I consider that a sufficient period of time hat elapsed since that sum of £5,000 was put into the hands of the Church of Scotland. There was some justification, perhaps, in the time of George IV. There is absolutely none now. There is no reason why the people of Britain should be asked for that payment out of the Consolidated Fund when, in view of taxation, there are so many other necessary, useful, and urgent directions in which it could go. These are the first of the two paragraphs. I think the right hon. Gentleman has arranged his Schedule with great skill in placing the first and the second amongst certain items of the Schedule as the only two that have any legal support at all—the only two about which he can site Statutes to support them. We come to the third paragraph. It reads:
(3) The annual sum of £2,000 chargeable and payable as aforesaid to the General Assembly for itinerant preachers.
What is the justification for that? Where is the Statute of George IV, or Elizabeth, or anybody else that justifies this
thing? The fact is that it is not justified. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has really pleaded that there is no justification for it, except use and wont for a number of years. I have wandered through Scotland from the Mull of Galloway to John o' Groats and_ I have never run into one of these itinerant preachers. I have run into many street corner agitators, but I have never run into one of the itinerant preachers, "carrying neither purse nor script and saluting no man by the way." I have seen the Salvation Army at it, and the Plymouth Brethren at it, but I have never seen one of these others wandering round pursuing their propaganda. We are asking the people of England, the simple, kindly, well disposed people of Great Britain, to contribute in this way some of their hard earned money—I am speaking of the people outside—for the maintenance of this body of itinerant preachers. It calls up the picture of the Franciscans, one of those friars with bare or sandalled feet, clothed in sackcloth, and with ashes on his head—and with paunches —the sort of thing that, possibly, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir Henry Craik) is thinking about. The itinerant preachers transport him into his wit political atmosphere—the Middle Ages But do not let us be too hard on the itinerant preachers, because they arc not there. So far as any ordinary casual traveller can observe, the itinerant preachers do riot exist, or only exist in paragraph (3) of the Seventh Schedule of the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Bill. Our Amendment does not propose to abolish this. If there are those in Scotland who want this sort of thing, we say, Well and good," let the payment be continued to the itinerant preachers for the course of their natural life, but when they die nobody else ought to step in to the enjoyment of this £2,000. That is a reasonable and intelligent proposetion. If we refuse to continue to pay this £2,000, we might inflict a hardship on some itinerant preacher at present unknown. If you say, "No, we are prepared to allow the continuance of the payment if there happens to be one preacher alive," and who is undoubtedly having a hard life if he is there, and at
the same time you safeguard the interests of those who are paying, you safeguard his interest and at the same time you safeguard the interest of the public purse. I am hastening to a conclusion, because I know an honourable understanding has been entered into as to the time that is to be taken for the various stages of this Bill, and I do not want to take an unreasonable share of that time; but this is an important Bill where the British House of Commons has some definite contract, and ought to have some thing to say on the question of expenditure. Take the fourth paragraph:
(4)The annual sum of £1,100 chargeable and payable as aforesaid towards the expenses of the General Assembly.
No reference there to the origin or the method or of the existence of that payment. Take the fifth paragraph:
(5)The annual sum of £86 3s. Id. land revenue allowances, chargeable and payable as aforesaid to certain precentors and ministers.
Everybody who has been in the habit of exercising control over bodies of work people, either in the public service or in private service, knows that it is a most unfair thing to make fish of one and flesh of the other. It does not make for efficient work or for harmony. It does not make for good feeling on the part of either employed or employer. Why there should be this annual sum of £86 3s. ld. land revenue allowances "chargeable and payable as aforesaid to certain precentors and ministers "I do not know. Look at the sum: "£86 3s. ld. for certain precentors and ministers." We should like information upon this. What are the total number of individuals concerned here How many of them are ministers and how many precentors? In what. proportion is the £86 3s. 1d. divided amongst them?. Is it fairly and justly divided to the precentors as compared to the ministers. I do not know. I have not the remotest notion who are the favoured precentors and ministers—if any—who are getting this £86 3s. ld. There are no dates in the Schedule or in any part of the Bill which enable us to trace them clown to their lair where they luxuriate on this £86 3s. Id. Then we come to the sixth paragraph to which I referred at the beginning:
(6)The annual payment under Royal Warrant to the minister of Dunkeld and
Dowally of an amount fixed by reference to Fiars Prices, chargeable and payable as aforesaid.
We are left absolutely in the dark as to what monarch issued that Royal Warrant. There may be a considerable sum of money. The Treasury may exercise the option that it has in Sub-section (2) of Clause 19 which reads:
 The Treasury may at any time contract for the redemption of it'll or any of the payments referred to in the preceding Subsection by payment to the General Trustees of such capital sum or sums as may be agreed between the Treasury and tile General Trustees.
We are passing to-day the control of this Measure right out of our hands. It is left to a business deal between the Treasury and the General Trustees, who decide what the capital payment is to be that is to arrange for the redemption of these annual charges. First of all, then, there is a legal statutory justification, and the reason for a change is that legal statutory basis is furnished by the changing times and changing attitude of the people of Scotland. The justification for payments out of the public purse has now gone. Out of six items two are only on the basis of a definitely traced date where there was a definite enactment. The other four cannot put forward a basis of justification for that at all. In these later four cases there is no justification now, whatever there may have been at the time these payments were first introduced into the House of Commons as a contract, to give to the Treasury and the General Trustees either the right to consider these annual payments in perpetuity or to commute them for a capital lump sum, which will be handed over to the Church of Scotland without any further check from this House of Commons, so that the Church can do absolutely anything it pleases, either keep them to their original purposes or change them to come other purpose, as I understand it. It seems to me it would he a misuse of a public trust if we allowed that to go through without Amendment. The Amendment put down in the name of myself and several other hon. Members is not intended to wipe out provision for the existing claims under this Clause. It merely says, that if we are to continue paying these sums we should pay them only for the lifetime of the present beneficiaries, and that if they are to be commuted for a capital
sum, which is going to be paid by the nation, it should be calculated not on the basis that these arc perpetual charges but are life charges in respect of existing individuals. That is a reasonable proposition, and I move it in the hope that this House, which has other interests to safeguard than those of Scottish Presbyterians, will pass it on its merits. By so doing, it will effect a great economy in public expenditure without doing any injustice whatever to the Established Church of Scotland.

Mr. STEPHEN: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am sorry that in this House we have not been able to secure the rejection of this Bill altogether. The Lord Advocate has stated that there was a majority in this House in support of the principles of this Measure and of all that is contained in it. He claimed that that was proof that if a plebisite were taken of the people of Scotland it would be seen that Scotland was in favour of this Measure. I think that if one had taken the opinion of the Scottish Members in the last House of Commons one would have had as good an indication with regard to this Measure as is afforded by the opinion of the majority of the Scottish Members in this House. He would not suggest, for example, that this Bill incorporates the Zinovieff letter which secured the return of the majority of Conservative Scottish Members to this House. He suggested, also, that the Church of Scotland is holding its various properties in trust for the people of Scotland, and that it was going to continue. to hold these Exchequer grants in trust for the people of Scotland; but when they were given to the Established Church of Scotland they were given to it because it stood in a certain definite position as compared with all the other Churches in Scotland at that time, because it was an instrument specially related to the State, and, also, because it stood for a certain body of doctrine and for a certain system of Government. But as a result of this Measure the Established Church of Scotland, which was endowed with this property, will be put in a different position altogether. With regard to those Exchequer grants, those, for instance, under the Teinds Act of 1810, and the Teinds Act of 1824, the disruption took place after those grants had been made to the Church of Scotland, and
one of the reasons that brought about this disruption, which led to a big part of the people of Scotland leaving the State Church, was the fact that they were not prepared to accept the position entailed by connection with the State. The Church of those days, which hung on to those endowments, which was rewarded with those endowments, is now going to walk away with them all, and it will be in an entirely new position, a position of privilege as compared with other religious bodies in Scotland. Because the United Free Church of Scotland, with which the Church of Scotland proposes to unite, has certain definite views with regard to State connection and State endowment, there is included in this Measure a way of getting away with the booty, and yet the suggestion is made that the State is going to have no connection with or holding over the Church in connection with this money, which is public money
If the Church of Scotland wants to unite with the United Free Church of Scotland, it should have been prepared to pay the price. The United Free Church of Scotland had to pay its price for its freedom; when the Free Church \vent out at the disruption, when the United Presbyerian Church, when the Belief Church came into being, they purchased their freedom with a great sum; and the Church of Scotland should also have been willing to pay the necessary price. Provision is made here for the redemption of those grants, and afterwards the House of Commons will have a very loose connection with the Church of Scotland, and little opportunities of seeing that the Church of Scotland carries out the purpose for which those moneys were given.
I know it may be argued that these payments out of the Consolidated Fund represent property which really belongs to the Church of Scotland. I am informed that the first item is for payments representing the Bishops' teinds; and the Presbyterian Church, which believes that episcopacy is contrary to the Scriptures, is getting Bishops' teinds payments! The Amendment we have put forward is a very reasonable Amendment, it is a reasonable price to ask the Church of Scotland to pay in order to be able to consummate this union, and at the came time it will give a certain measure of justice to people in Scotland
who are not going into this union, to people of other sects. Whether a man be a Baptist, or a Congregationalist, or a Roman Catholic, or a member of the Scottish Episcopal Church, he is entitled to look to the House of Commons to give him justice, to give him equality with the people of the Presbyterian denomination.
I know that the majority of the Scottish people have been inclined to take the Presbyterian view-point with regard to the government of their own church, have been inclined to support the point of view that is laid down in their doctrines, so generally held by Presbyterians throughout the world. At the same time, there have been other Scotsmen who have taken the Baptist view, or the Congregationalist view, and they arc just as much entitled to have their views respected by the State as the bigger number of people who take the Presbyterian view. While I would be delighted to see union between those two great Scottish Churches, I do not believe they are going to get it right away by continuing an injustice to the people of other denominations. Therefore, I support this Amendment, and would say to the Lord Advocate that I do not think he is acting fairly in handing all this over to his own Church, and that he has not paid sufficient attention to the view of the respectable number of people of other denominations who are protesting against this public money being given to one denomination.

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: I am not able wholly to support the Amendment. I have on the Paper an Amendment proposing that these payments, unless otherwise determined, should terminate at the end of 40 years. I had hoped to have a Division on my Amendment, but I understand the more heroic one has been preferred; therefore I do not propose to delay the House very long with comments on my Amendment. I would like to say, with regard to the amusing and interesting speech of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), that I think he is quite wrong in his view of the attitude of the Scottish people towards church union. I am quite satisfied that the great majority of the people of Scotland, not only in the Established Church, but also in the United Free Church and in the other denominations not immediately
affected by the union, are anxious for this union; are, indeed, very tired of the long-drawn-out negotiations for union, which have disgusted most of the Scottish people. They have blamed the leaders of the churches for incompetence and inefficiency in not being able sooner to bring about what has appeared to them to be a simple proposition. The Church of Scotland has been hampered by reason of its State connection, and this Bill has been brought forward to remove some of those obstacles. For that reason I have given general support to the Bill, but I have always made an exception of this Clause 19, which, it seems to me, is rather unfortunate. There can be no blinking the fact that the State connection is definitely maintained by Clause 19. I am aware that it is the intention of the Treasury and the hope of the Church that these payments should be redeemed. But, as I have already pointed out in Committee, we all know that Governments and Government Departments are very uncertain, and we have no assurance that this redemption will take place. The Lord Advocate, in commenting on my opposition upstairs, pointed out that if redemption took place immediately, the adoption of my Amendment would not cost the Church a penny and therefore he went even further than I suggested. He also pointed out that if redemption did not take place at once or very soon, there would be a serious financial loss to the Church as time went on. That is exactly one of the reasons why I put down the Amendment, because if there was that prospect of financial loss pressure might be applied which would result in this redemption taking place.
When final negotiations for union are entered upon, as I think they will be very soon, the argument of those opposed to union will be the State connection and the fact that the Church is a permanent annuitant of the State. I wish for Church union, and therefore I desire that, if redemption does not take place, the supporters of Church union can point to a lime when these payments will finally cease. The Lord Advocate seemed to view, not with alarm, but with some complacency, the fact that there would be minorities against union in each of the two churches. He seemed
to think that this was an act of Providence arising from the peculiarly thrawn and theologically argumentative character of his fellow countrymen. That may be so! We are a peculiar people! I have no desire however that these minorities should be any larger than is absolutely necessary. We do not want a recurrence of what happened a few years ago, and we want these minorities to be as small as possible, and I wish to deprive them of any substance or solid measure of justice in their opposition to Church union.
For these reasons I would urge upon the Government that they should, even at this hour, reconsider the matter. The Lord Advocate pointed out that, if the Church in the course of time found that these charges were an obstacle to union, they might consider modifying their claim. I would point out that it is a very different thing modifying opposition once it has been aroused than it is preventing it. It is more important to prevent opposition arising than to come afterwards and say there is opposition to union on account of these charges, and therefore we will withdraw our claim. That would be an unfortunate and undignified thing to do, and I think we should intelligently view the future and make provision for such a contingency. For these reasons, if the Government do not see their way to accept what I have suggested, I shall feel it my duty as regards this Clause to oppose the Government and support the Amendment which has been moved.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division (Mr. Maxton) spoke of the contents of the Seventh Schedule as if he had never heard of them before and had never had any explanation of them before, and as if he had never taken a detailed interest in any of them before. I would like to point out that in the Debate on the Financial Resolution of this Bill I fully explained historically the reference to every one of these payments, and I remember that I was interrupted by the hon. Member for Bridgeton. Therefore, I think I may suggest to him that his memory on this matter is very short.

Mr. MAXTON: I am not questioning the right Eon Gentleman's statement that we have had the fullest explanation given
to us, but what I do say is that the explanation left the matter exactly where it was before the explanation was given.

The LORD ADVOCATE: All I wish to say is that all these payments have been traced back in Debate and the documentary origin given in each case.

Mr. MAXTON: Not in the Bill.

The LORD ADVOCATE: These payments stand at the present moment as a charge on the Consolidated Fund, and they are to be found stated in the usual accounts. The hon. Member for Bridgeton suggested that they had never been explained.

Mr. MAXTON: No, no.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I do not propose to go through these charges in detail again. There is a remarkable difference of opinion as to the true aspect in which these rights or obligations or payments should be looked at. Historically 1 take the view that they were payments, in fact undoubtedly they were all payments existing prior to the Consolidated Fund, and some of them were charged on the hereditary revenues of Scotland prior to the beginning of last century, and earlier in the case of several of them, which can be traced to grants made by the Scottish Crown. Take the example mentioned by the hon. Member for Bridgeton. I will take the sixth item in the Seventh Schedule as an excellent illustration. The payments made to the minister of Dunkeld and Dowally originated in 1604 under a grant from the Crown because they held property in a sense belonging to the Church. That was the origin of this annual payment. I know there was litigation subsequently, but there was a special reason for giving this payment to the minister of Dunkeld and Dowally. This payment originated in 1604

Mr. BARR: We need not go into the history, but I think the beginning of the Episcopacy was before the beginning of that century.

The LORD ADVOCATE: We need not go into that history, but I think the origin of this payment is a good instance of a payment to a particular minister in a particular parish, and it would be very interesting to know what the result
would be if it were put to the members of the Congregational Church in Scot. land whether payments of that kind which had been paid for centuries were to be taken away as a necessary part of union. It would be interesting to know, but I think a large majority would vote for their retention. I should have thought that some hon. Members opposite would have at least been reluctant to relieve any English Members in their constituency from any liability, especially when it was a payment which originated as a charge on Scottish hereditary revenues. The hon. Member for Bridgeton made some reference to the itinerant preachers, but I think he must have been singularly unfortunate if he has not met itinerant preachers in the Highlands, because they are doing their work very well, and under this Amendment apparently that stops at once.
I would like to say just a word or two as to the alternative proposal to which the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels) has referred. The hon. Member proposed his Amendment upstairs, and I can only repeat here what I said in appreciation of his attitude towards the Bill and the aim he had in proposing that Amendment. I may be more optimistic than he is. I am speaking with a very considerable knowledge of the negotiations between the two Churches for some years past, and I am more optimistic than he is as to whether the continuation of these payments, in view of their origin, is likely to have any appreciable effect on the negotiations for union. Of course, under certain circumstances, they can be given up. The proposal made by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, unless there was immediate redemption, in which case it made no difference, would only result in serious loss to the Church, because the liability in negotiating for redemption 20 years hence would only secure a sum which very naturally the Church could not possibly accept. On the main Amendment upon which we are going to divide, the issue is quite clear between us in regard to payments which have been made all this time. Are you going to regard them as mere taxation on the Consolidated Fund, ignoring their historical origin, or are you going to regard them, as I ask you to do, as part
of the heritage of the Church, which I again repeat she has held in trust for the people of Scotland. For these reasons I
ask the House not to accept this Amendment.

Question put, "That the words pro-posed to be left out stand part of the Bill"

The House divided: Ayes, 298; Noes, 126.

Division No. 97.]
AYES.
[6.0 p.m


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir Jamas T.
Davidson, Ma|or-General Sir J. H.
Hurd, Percy A.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Hutchison, G.A.Clark(M!d!'n &P'bl's)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
lirffe, Sir Edward M.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Dawson, Sir Philip
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Jacob, A. E.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Bainiel, Lord
Drewe, C.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M
Duckworth, John
Jephcott, A,R.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Kidd, J. (Llnlithgow)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Edmondson, Major A. J
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Edwards, John H. (Accrlngton)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Ellis, R. G.
Lamb, J. Q


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Elveden, Viscount
Lane-Fox, Colonel George R


Berry, Sir George
Ersklne, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Locker-Lampson, G.(Wood Green)


Bethell, A.
Ersklne, James Malcolm Montelth
Loder, J. de V.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Everard, W. Lindsay
Looker, Herbert William


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lougher, L.


Blundell, F. N.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Falls, Sir Charles F.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Brass, Captain W.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Fermoy, Lord
Lumley, L. R.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cllve
Fielden, E. B.
Lynn, Sir Robert J.


Briggs, J. Harold
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A.L.
 MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Briscoe, Richard George
Fleming, D. P.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Ford, P. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Forestler-Walker, L.
Macdonald, R.(Glasgow, Cathcart)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Forrest, W.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Broun-Llndsay, Major H.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Maclntyre, Ian


Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
McLean, Major A.


Brown, Brlg.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Fraser, Captain lan
Macmilian, Captain H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Buckingham, Sir H.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Bull, Rt Hon. Sir William James
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Macquisten, F. A.


Bullock, Captain M.
Gllmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Burgoyne, Lieut-Colonel Sir Alan
Goff, Sir Park
Maklns, Brigadier-General E.


Burman, J. B.
Gower, Sir Robert
Malone, Major P. B.


Burney, Lieut.-Com.Charles D.
Grace, John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Burton, Colonel H. W,
Grant, J. A.
Margesson, Captain D.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Campbell, E. T.
Gretton, Colonel John
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Meiler, R. J.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.b.)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane(Streatham)


Cazalet. Captain Victor A.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Bad.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moore-Brabazon. Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Harland, A.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Chapman, Sir S.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Hartington, Marquess of
Murchlson, C. K.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Harvey, G.(Lambeth, Kennlngton)
Nail, Lieut-Colonel Sir Joseph


Christie, J. A.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nelson, Sir Frank


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Haslam, Henry C.
Neville, R. J.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hawke, John Anthony
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Clayton, G. C.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Cohen, Major J Brunei
Hennessy, Major J.R.G.
Oakley, T.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hennlker-Hughan, Vlce-Adm. Sir A.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Cope, Major William
Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Pennefather, Sir John


Couper, J. B.
Hilton, Cecil
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fltzroy
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cralg, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Peto, G.(Somerset, Frome)


Cralg, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Holland, Sir Arthur
Philipson, Mabel


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Holt, Capt. H. P
Plelou, D. P


Crook, C. W
Homan, C. W. J
Pilcher, G


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Hopkins, J. W. W
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Preston, William


Crookshank, Cpt H.(Llndsey, Galnsbro)
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Price, Major C. W. M.


Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Raine, W.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
joynson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whlteh'n)
Ramsden, E.


Dalkelth, Earl of
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Rees, Sir Beddoe
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, C.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Smithers, Waldron
Warrender, Sir Victor


Rentoul, G. S.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Watson, Sir F.(Pudsey and Otley)


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Rice, Sir Frederick
Spender Clay, ColonelH
Wells, S. R.


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (WilI'sden, E.)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Ropner, Major L.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W.H
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Rye, F. G
Strickland, Sir Gerald
Wise, Sir Fredrlc


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Stuart, Crlchton-, Lord C.
Wolmer, Viscount


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Womersley, W. J.


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Styles, Captain H. Walter
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Sanderson, Sir Frank
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Frase
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)


Sandon, Lord
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gastave D
Tasker, Major R. Inlgo
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Savery, S. S.
Templeton, W. P.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Scott, Sir Leslie (Ltverp'l, Exchange)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W)Titchfield, Major the Marquess ofYerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Tryun, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Shepperson, E. W.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
TELLERS FORTHE AYES.—


Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Waddington, R.
Colonel Gibbs and Mr. F. C.


Skelton. A. N.
Wallace, Captain D.E.
Thomson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfleld)
Smilile, Robert


Attlee, Clement Richard
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Johnston, Thomas(Dundee)
smith, H. B. Lees-(Kelghley)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertlllery)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)
Smith. Rennle (Penistone)


Barnes, A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Barr, J.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontyprldd)
Spoor, Rt, Hon. Benjamin Charles


Batey, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T.W.


Briant, Frank
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Broad, F. A.
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Bromfleld, William
Lawson, John James
Taylor, R. A.


Buchanan, G.
Lee, F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cape, Thomas
Livingstone, A. M.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Clowes, S.
Lowth, T.
Thornton, Trevelyan (Mlddlesbro. W.)


Cluse, W. S.
Lunn, William
Thorne, G.R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Compton, Joseph
Mackinder, W.
Thurtle, E.


Connolly, M.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G.
March. s.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Maxton, James
Varley, Frank B.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Vlant, S. P.


Davies. Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Montague, Frederick
Wallhead. Richard C.


Day, Colonel Harry
Morris, R. H.
Warne, G. H.


Dennison, R.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. M.(Dunfermline)


Dunnico, H.
Murnln, H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Fenby, T. D.
Oliver, George Harold
Webb, Rt, Hon. Sidney


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Owen, Major G
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Gibbins, Joseph
Palin, John Henry
Westwood, J.


Gosling, Harry
Paling, W.
Whiteley, W.


Greenall, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Potts, John S.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Groves, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Sprlng)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Grundy, T. W.
Riley, Ben
Williams. T.(York, Don Valley)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Ritson, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercllffe)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Robinson. W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Windsor, Walter


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scrymgeour, E.
Wright, W.


Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hayes, John Henry
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sort, Alfred (Wednesbury)
TELLERSFOR THE NOES.—


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Mr. Hardie and Mr. Klrkwood

CLAUSE 21.—(Orders of Commissioners.

Amendments made:

In page 15, line 19, after the word "which," insert the words:

" is for the time being used for ecclesiastical purposes, and which."

In page 16, line 21, leave out the word "minister," and insert instead thereof
the word "ministers." — [The Lord Advocate

CLAUSE 22. — (Burgh churches

Amendments made:

In page 17, line 42, leave out from the word "protection" to the word "of" in line 43.

In page 20, line 16, leave out the second word "the," and insert instead thereof the word "any." — [The Lord Advocate]

CLAUSE 28. — (Transfer of rights in parish, churches and manses

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in page 22, line 32, to leave out from the word "repair" to the end of Sub-section (3), and to insert instead thereof the words
 after the passing of this Act it shall be the duty of the General Trustees to undertake all the liabilities that were previously incumbent upon the heritors in that regard.
The point which we are now about to discuss is much narrower, but involves at least as great a principle as that which we have just been discussing. We have heard a great deal this afternoon about the interest, or lack of interest, that is taken in this Bill in Scotland, but I can assure the Lord Advocate and the members of his party that, if they proceed to enforce Clause 28 as it stands, and if any large-scale enforcement does take place, there will be no lack of interest in this Bill in Scotland. It reminds me of the story of the Scottish ecclesiastic who came down to London on a visit, I think from the county represented by the hon. and learned Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. F. C. Thomson). This ecclesiastic, during a conversation with a celebrated clergyman of the Church of England, was asked by him about his parishioners, and amongst other things he was asked if his parishioners in the North feared God. He replied that, "He wasna sae sure o' that, but they were certainly fleggit o' the other fellow."
The ultimate amount of interest that may he taken in this Bill, as a result of the passage of Clause 28, may not be taken on ecclesiastical grounds, but it certainly will be aroused if hundreds of thousands of small cottage owners are to be compelled within the next three years to pay for the repair of manses of the Church. I quite agree that the Lord Advocate is on absolutely safe historical ground when he says that there is an ecclesiastical burden upon the large estates in Scotland. In order to find out the extent of that ecclesiastical burden, we have, as the Lord Advocate has already frequently done during the discussions on this Bill, to go back to the
origin of these estates. We certainly have to go back to the time of the Reformation. We know that at the time of the Reformation the Church owned from one-half to one-third of the landed estates in Scotland, and John Knox and the Reformers believed that, as a result of the Reformation, the teinds would he used for three purposes—firstly, for the upkeep of the kirk; secondly, to support the disabled and aged poor, and to provide work for the unemployed—for never let the Lord Advocate forget that John Knox was the first pioneer of the Right to Work Bill in British public affairs and, thirdly, there was to come from the teinds provision for public elementary education.
John Knox was disappointed. After the Reformation, he discovered that the landowners who had supported him were not interested in an ecclesiastical Reformation at all, but that the landowners were out to collar the estates of the old Church. If there be any dispute with that historically, I have a quotation here from Professor Hill Burton, who will, I am sure, be accepted by hon. Members opposite as a historian who would not have an undue bias against the landowners of Scotland. He says this:
 The Protestant clergy, sagacious as they were in most things, seem to have made the mistake of supposing that the active energy with which their lay brethren helped them to pull down Popery was actually the fruit of religious zeal, and to have expected that they took from the one Church merely to give to the other. The landowners, on their part, thought such an expectation so utterly preposterous that they did not condescend to reason with it, but, without hypocritical attempt to varnish their selfishness, called the expectations of the ministers a fond imagination.' 
Knox, on his death-bed, after he had lived to know the barons of his native land, denounced the nobility who had greedily kept all the possessions of the Kirk. The landowners acquired their lands mostly by theft. I see an hon. Member opposite smiling at that, but, if he wants proof of it, he can turn to the Second Series of the Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, edited by Professor Masson, and he will get there, in the Preface, the whole story of the Church lands in Scotland being raped from the Church at the time of the Reformation by the ancestors of many of the present large landowners in Scotland. They have escaped their liabilities of
providing for the aged poor, of providing for education, for the right to work, and so on. They have devolved these liabilities, one after another, upon the public, and now we have come to this last one of all, the liability for the maintenance of religious observances in Scotland; and I agree with the Lord Advocate that this burden does hang on to the landed estates of Scotland to-day, and by no argument can we get out of it.
Here, however, is what is happening. For the last 100 years and more, the landowners have been feuing their estates in small portions, and they have got rid of the ecclesiastical liabilities to the extent of the land they have feued away, while the small feuars, who have taken over pieces of land for the purpose of building for themselves cottages, and so on, now find that, under this Bill, they are going to be compelled to shoulder liabilities, not on the value of the land, but on the value of the property they have built upon the land. They are being compelled to shoulder ecclesiastical liabilities that certainly should have been legally shouldered by the large landowners. While it may be argued that the small man, when he fens a quarter of an acre or half an acre in order to build a cottage, is presumed to know that he is taking over large ecclesiastical liabilities, at the same time, as a matter of fact, it is within the knowledge of every hon. Member who comes from Scotland that no small man, when he does feu such land, is ever told anything about ecclesiastical liabilities, and the question of ecclesiastical liabilities, future or potential, never enters his head.
Now we have this position—that, within the next three years, in certain parts of Scotland, the Church authorities may come along and say to all the small feuars in their parishes, "We call upon you to put the fabrics of the manses in proper tenantable repair. We are going to the Sheriff. The Sheriff's decision is final, and you must pay. If you do not pay, then the penalties which follow from refusal to pay will be yours." The Lord Advocate, in response to pleas of a similar character in Committee, came forward with a concession. He evidently recognised that there was some force in this contention that we made, and he agreed in let off the small feuars to the extent
of £30. To the extent of £30 on their annual value in the valuation roll, they will not be taxed for the repair of the Church manses, and to that extent they are clear; but, with the recent rise in the annual value of property in Scotland, and the new municipal houses, or large numbers of them, at any rate, being rented at £32, £34, and so on, and with the fact that within the next two or three years the Government propose to decontrol house property, with the consequent rise in annual value, it will be found that pretty nearly every cottage dwelling in Scotland will be rolled in for payment of this tax.
I agree that they will not be rolled in for much, that the amounts will be comparatively small. For instance, a man who lives in a cottage standing on the valuation roll at £35, gets off in respect of the first 130, and is only going to pay on. the £5. It may be that the amount will only be 6d. in the and, therefore, he will only have to pay 2s. 6d.; but the collection of that 2s. 6d. will he absolutely impossible. Hundreds of thousands of people will not pay, and the expense of collecting these small sums will, in my judgment, be far more than the whole thing is worth. While there is yet time, I would plead with the Lord Advocate, in the interests of Church unity in Scotland, in the interests of ecclesiastical peace in Scotland, not to come along with legislation which will compel small cottage proprietors within the next two or three years to pay sums, although admittedly they are small, for purposes which thousands of them have conscientious objections to paying for at all.
Surely, with all these sums of money that we have heard about this afternoon — £20,000 from the Consolidated Fund, general taxation, the redemption of teinds, and so on—with all these sums of money falling into the coffers of the General Trustees, it is not too much to ask that the General Trustees of the Church of Scotland should put in tenantable repair the manses of that Church. I do not seek, as was thought by another Amendment in Committee, to wipe out the liabilities of the heritors altogether. I and those associated with me in this Amendment seek simply to wipe out of Clause 28 the existing provisions as to the repair of churches and manses, and to insert a provision that it shall hereafter be the duty of the General Trustees
to put the manses in tenantable repair. I submit that it is not unreasonable to ask that the General Trustees should take over a liability which the great bulk of the people of Scotland, apart from lawyers, believe to have been in the past the liability of the large estate heritors, and not in any way a liability of the small cottage owner. On behalf of my hon. Friends, I beg to assure the Lord Advocate that we shall do our utmost—and it will not require very much—to stir up all the opposition we possibly can to the small cottage proprietors being taxed on the value of their' cottages to pay for the repair of manses, because they happen to be feuars of land, where the land only was originally the subject of taxation. We hold it to be a scandal and a shame that large landowners should have got free of their liability by throwing that liability on to the small cottage owners.

Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
I have an Amendment of a similar character on the Paper myself, but, in accordance with the general wish, these Amendments have been linked together, and one must take one's share in the discussion, although one's Amendment is not in the exact terms of that which has been moved. In discussing this part of the Bill we are discussing one of the most important points which the Bill raises, namely, whether we are going to hand over to the Church of Scotland the churches and manses as they are, or whether the heritors are to be responsible for repairing them before they are finally handed over. That is the point that is raised in this part of the Bill. We have been told again and again in the course of these discussions that the Church is anxious that it should have the money and the property which are involved, handed over to them and under their awn control.
So far as the churches and manses are concerned, I am perfectly willing that these properties should be handed ever to the Church, but I am against the responsibility for the repairs of these properties being put upon the heritors before they are handed over, and I think the House need be under no illusion as to the serious nature of the liability which the repairs of churches and manses will place upon the shoulders of the heritors if the Bill pass as it now stands. Human nature being what it is, it is only
natural that if this provision remains in the Bill, the trustees and ministers will see to it that these properties are put into a satisfactory state of repair before being handed over. I do not know a part of the Bill which will cause more trouble and dissatisfaction than this, because you have room here for 500 Cathcarts before we are finished. They will not be of the same substantial character, and there will not be the same sum involved in each of the churches or manses that there was in the Cathcart case, but you will have exactly the same principle involved and you will get the same trouble, and if you have it in anything like as large a number of cases as I am mentioning, we are storing up trouble for ourselves sufficient to undo the aim that the Lord Advocate has put forward again and again upstairs and in the House. The main purpose of the Bill was to prepare the ground for the union of the two great Presbyterian bodies, the Established Church and the United Free Church. believe if this remains in, you will largely undo the good work which would be accomplished if you were successful in the object you have in view, because you may get union in the churches, but you will have a sea. of dissatisfaction so far as the masses of the people are concerned if the Bill pass as it is.

The LORD ADVOCATE: May I first tell the House exactly how the matter stands? I think hon. Members who were not in the Committee will not gather a very accurate representation of the true state of matters from the two speeches to which we have just listened. The effect of the present Amendment would be to give a premium to neglect of an existing duty. At present the heritors, he they large or small, are liable for the repairs of churches and manses, and in so far as that liability has been fairly and properly carried out to date, there will not he a penny further needed under this Bill, because what we propose is that when the churches and manses are handed over to the Church, they shall be handed over in. a reasonable state of repair. Once handed over, there should be no future liability far repair at all. In a case where they have neglected their duty to repair, according to the Amendment they are to get off and to get freedom for having neglected those duties. It may not be their fault, of course, in some cases, but that is the result of the Amendment. It
is also important to point out that we have carefully provided in the Bill that any question of want of repair on the handing over is not to include structural alterations—a very important point. In other words, it is a mere replacing of wear and tear, but nothing fresh has to be brought in, and no demand is to be made for structural alterations to the fabric before they are handed over. That takes out the heaviest items in the periodical levies which have been made on the heritors for these assessments, for it is the cases, as in Cathcart, where a complete new church was asked to be built, which have proved the troublesome ones in the past.
The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) talks about thousands of cottages. There will be very few of the housing scheme houses which have over £30 of rental. There may he a few Addison houses, but that is all. Most will run, at the highest, to £28, or thereabouts. Under the Bill as framed, £30 comes off everyone, and the man who has a £35 rental will only be liable for £5 of rental. He gets off the first £30, too. Therefore. even if your thousands of cottages include a £35 or £40 rental—which may happen in the Burghs, but will not happen in the towns—that man is getting off £30. I should be very much surprised if they were not exceedingly grateful for the reasonable way in which it is proposed to deal with them under the Bill. I heard with the deepest regret the hon. Member for Dundee indicate that he proposes to stir up all the trouble he can. It is the greatest possible pity that he should give vent to such a sentiment in the House, and still more that he should do it outside. One was, of course, impressed with the position of the small feuars, and it is for that reason that what is undoubtedly a very substantial concession was given.

The hon. Member referred to the fact that no one ever told the feuars that they were taking over ecclesiastical liabilities. It must have been a pretty careless lawyer who did not tell them that when they got their title. I can see it in the case of small property, but when you are getting up to £30, £40, or £50, I should be very much surprised if they did not know it perfectly well. After all, the taking over of that liability resulted in a reduced price having to be paid for the feu, and very naturally, when it is part of the consideration that you take over the burden, I am sure the House will be satisfied that in this case, where we are terminating an existing liability, where this is the one last demand we are making, and only on those who have neglected that existing liability, and that one demand terminates the liability for the future, and it excludes structural alterations, and lastly that over and above all, that £30 is taken off the rental of everyone, a deficiency which the Church has to bear—it is not spread over—any feeling of hardships or friction which might otherwise have been engendered, can have no substantial foundation under the Bill as now framed, and it would be most unjustifiable to suggest that there was any cause for heart-burning.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: What will be included in the repair of the manses?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The ordinary repairs, but not structural alterations.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Would it include painting and papering?

The LORD ADVOCATE: Of course.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 285; Noes, 122

Division No. 98.]
AYES.
[6.40 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Bourns, Captain Robert Croft


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Barnett, Major Richard W.
Brass, Captain W.


Albery, Irving James
Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Brasey, Sir Leonard


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cllve


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Centr'l)
Bellalrs. Commander Carlyon W.
Briscoe, Richard George


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby)
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Atholl, Duchess of
Berry, Sir George
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.


Balrd, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Bethell, A.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Drown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'I'd, Hexham)


Balniel, Lord
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Brown, Brlg.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Blundell, F. N.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Perkins. Colonel E. K.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Had.)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Burman, J. B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Harland, A.
Philipton, Mabel


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Harrison, G. 1. C.
Plelou, O. P.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hartington, Marquess of
Pllcher, G.


Campbell, E. T.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennlngton)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Cautley, Sir Henry B.
Harvey, Mafor S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Haslam,
Henry C.
Balne, W.


Cayzer, Ma|. Sir Herbt.R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Hawke, John Anthony
Ramsden, E.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) H.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Reid, D.D. (County Down)


Chapman, Sir S
Hennlker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Charters, Brigadier-General J.
Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hilton, Cecil
Richardson, sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Christie, J. A.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Clarry, Reginald George
Holland, Sir Arthur
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Clayton, G. C.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Ropner, Major L.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Homan, C. W. J.
Ruggles-Brlse, Major E. A.


Cockerill, Brigadler-General G. K.
Hopkins, 1.W. W
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Horllck, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Rye, F. G.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Horne. Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cope, Major William
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Sanders, Sir Hobert A.


Couper, J. B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Hudson, R.S.(Cumberland, Whlteh'n)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gurtavt D.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hume, Sir G. H.
8avery,S. s.


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Hurd, Percy A
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W)


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hutchlson,G.A.Clark(Mldl'n &P'bl'S)
Shaw, Capt. W. W.(Wllts, Westb'y)


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shepperson, E. W.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
lliffe, Sir Edward M.
Shlels, Dr. Drummond


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Llndsey,Galnsbro)
Jacob, A. E.
Sinclair, Major Sir A.(Caithness)


Cunllffe, Joseph Herbert
Jephcott, A.R.
Skelton, A. N.


Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Joynson-Hlcks, Rt.Hon. Sir William
Smith R.W.(Aberd'n & Klnc'dlne.C.)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kldd, J. (Linllthgow)
Smith-Carington, Neville W


Dalkeith, Earl of
King. Captain Henry Douglas
mithers, Waldron


Davidson, J.(Hertfd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Somervlile, A. A.(Windsor)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Lamb, J. Q.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Davies, MaJ. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovli)
Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.
 Sprot, Sir Alexander


Davies, Sir Thomas (Clrencester)
Loder, J. de V.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Wlll'sden, E.)


Dawson. Sir Philip
Looker, Herbert William
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Dean, Arthur Weliesley
Louoher, L.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Doyle. Sir N. Grattan
Lowe. Sir Francis Wiliam
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Drewe, C
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Storry Deans, R


Duckworth, John
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lumley, L.R
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Naico)


Edmonson, Major A.J
Lynn, Sir Robert J
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Ellis, R.G
Macdonald, Capt. P. D.(f. of W.)
Templeton, W.P


Elvedon, Viscount
Macdonald, R. (Glnsgow, Cathcart)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell.(Croydon,S.)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macintyre, lan
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Fairfax, Captain J.G
Macmillan, Captain H
Waddington, R


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McNelll, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Wallace, Captain D.E.


Falls, Sir Charies F.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hutt)


Fanshawe, Commander G.D
Macqulsten, F.A.
Warner, Brigadler-General W.W.


Fermony, Lord
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fielden, E.B.
Maltland, Sir arthur D. Steel
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Flsher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A.L.
Makins, Brlgadler-General E.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W.(Carllsle)


Fleming, D. P
Malone, Major P. S.
Wells, S.R


Ford, P.J
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wheler, Major Granvllle C.H.


Forestler-Walker, L.
Margesson, Captain D.
White, Lieut-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Forrest, W.
Marrlott, Sir J.A.R.
Williams, A.M.(Cornwall, Northern)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Mason, Lieut-Col. Glyn K.
Williams, Com. c.(Devon, Torquay)


Foxcroft, Captain C.T
Mltchell, W. Foot (Saffron Waldern)
Wilson, Sir C.H.(Leeds, Central)


Fraser, Captain lan
Mltchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francls E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Eari


Gadle, Lieut-Col. Anthony
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut-Col. J.T.C.
Wise, Sir Frdric


Ganzonl, Sir John
Morrison, H. (Wllts, Sallsbury)
Wolmer, Viscount


Gault, Lieut-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Murchlson, C.K
Womersley, W.J


Gee, Captain R.
Nall, Lieut-Colonel Sir Joseph
Wood, B.C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Gibbs, Col Rt Hon George Abraham
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wood, Rt. Hon E.(York, W. R, Ripon)


Gilmour, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Newton, Sir R.H.S.D.L. (Exeter)
Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Goff, Sir Park
Newton, Sir D.G.C. (Cambrldge)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Gower, Sir Robert
Nlcholson, O.(Westmlnster)
Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)


Grace, John
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L


Grant, J.A
Nuttall, Eills
Yerburgh, Major Robert D.T


Greene, W.P. Crawford
Oakley,T



Gretton, Colonel John
O'Connor, T.J.(Bedfor, Luton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Grotrian, H. Brent
Owen, Major G
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Gulnness, Rt. Hon. Walter E
Captain Douglas Hacking and Mr.
F. C. Thomson


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W.(Fife, West)
Hayes, John Henry
Short, Alfred(Wodnesbury)


Adamson, W. M.(Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A.(Burnley)
Sitch, Charles H.


Alexander, A. V.(Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hirst, G. H.
Smilile, Robert


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hirst, W.(Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben(Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Baker, J.(Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hore-Beilsha, Leslie
Smith, H. B. Lees-(Keighley)


Barker, G.(Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hudson, J. H.(Huddersfield)
Smith, Rennle(Penistone)


Barnes, A.
John, William(Rhondda, West)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Barr, J
Jones, Henry Haydn(Merioneth)
Stamlord, T. W


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Morgan(Caerphilly)
Stephen, Campbell


Briant, Frank
Jones, T. I. Mardy(Pontypridd)
Sutton, J. E.


Broad, F.A.
Kelly, W. T.
Taylor, R. A.


Bromfield, William
Kennedy, T
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H.(Darby)


Buchanan, G
Klrkwood, D
Thomas, Sir Robert John(Anglesey)


Clowes, S.
Lansbury, George
Thomson, Trevelyan(Mlddlesbro. W.)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Thorne, G. R.(Wolverhampton, E.)


Compton, Joseph
Lee, F.
Thorne, W.(West Ham, Plalstow)


Connolly, M.
Lowth, T.
Thurtle, E.


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Evan(Ebbw Vale)
Mackinder, W.
Varley, Frank B.


Davies, Rhys John(Westhoughton)
Maclean, Nell(Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
March, S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dennlson, R.
Maxton, James
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Duncan, c.
Montague, Frederick
Warne, G. H.


Dunnico, H.
Morris, R. H.
Watson, W. M.(Dunfermline)


Edwards John H.(Accrlngton)
Morrison, R. C.(Tottenham,N.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D.(Rhondda)


Fenby, T. D.
Murnin, H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Garro-Jones, Captain G.M.
Oliver, George Harold
Westwood, J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Patin, John Henry
Whiteley, W.


Gillett, George M.
Paling, W.
Wilkinson, EllenC


Gosling, Harry
Parkinson, John Allen(Wigan)
Williams, C. P.(Denbigh, Wrexham)


Greenall, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, David(Swansea, East)


Grentell, D. R.(Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, Dr. J. H.(Lianelly)


Griffiths, T.(Monmouth, Pontypool)
Potts, JohnS
Williams, T.(York, Don Valley)


Groves, T.
Richardson, R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, C. H.(Sheffield, Attercilfle)


Grundy, T. W.
Riley, Ben
Wilson, R. J.(Jarrow)


Guest, J.(York, Hemsworth)
Ritson, J.
Wright, W.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden(Southwark, N.)
Robinson, W. C.(Yorks. W. R, Elland)
Young, Robert(Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F.(York, W. R., Normanton)
Saklatvala, Shapurji



Hall, G. H.(Merthyr Tydvll)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harney,E. A.
Scrymgeour, E.
Mr. T. Johnston and Mr. Hardie


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sexton, James

Amendments made: In page 24, line 38, leave out the first word "the" and insert instead thereof the word "his."

Page 25, line 15, at the end, insert new Sub-sections:

"(7) Whenever in. any parish it shall be necessary in view of anything to he done or agreed, or in consequence of anything done or agreed, or ordered to he done under or in pursuance of this Section to call a meeting of heritors, a circular letter containing an intimation of the meeting shall be sent twenty-one clear days before the meeting to every known heritor whose total rental within the parish as appearing in the valuation roll (whether such rental consists of one or more subjects) exceeds the sum of thirty pounds, and intimation of the meeting shall also be given by advertisement in a newspaper circulating in the parish once during each of two successive weeks and within the said period of twenty-one days.

(8) Subject to the modifications in the two immediately preceding Sub-sections of this Section the existing law and practice relating to heritors' meetings and ecclesiastical assessments shall apply to meetings of heritors to be held and ecclesiastical assessments to be imposed under, or in consequence. or pursuance of this Section."— [The Lord Advncate]

CLAUSE 31. —(Redemption of fen duty affecting glebe)

Amendments made: In page 27, lines 30 and 31, leave out the words "standard charge," and insert instead thereof the words "feu duty."

In page 27, line 35, leave out the words "standard charge," and insert instead thereof the words feu duty." — [The Lord Advocate]

CLAUSE 32. — (Transfer of parish churchyards)

Amendments made: In page 28, line 30, at the end, insert the words:
 or for the preservation as an ancient or historic monument.

In page 29, line 10, at the end, insert a new Sub-section:
 (2) The provisions relating to the sale of the right of burial contained in Section eighteen of the Burial Grounds (Scotland) Act, 1855, shall apply to any churchyard transferred to a parish council by or in pursuance of this Act, and to any enlargement or extension thereof.

In page 30, line 13, at the end, insert the words:
 Subject always to such conditions (if any) as the parish council or other local authority may appoint with respect to the public right of access to the churchyard free of charge."— [The LordAdvocate]

CLAUSE 38. — (Additional powers of General Trustees)

Mr. MacROBERT: I beg to move, in page 37, line 43, at the end, to insert new Sub-sections:
" (4) The General Assembly shall have power to determine from time to time the number of General Trustees who shall form a quorum at meetings of the General Trustees, provided always that the number so determined shall in no case be less than three as prescribed in Section thirteen of the Church of Scotland (General Trustees) Order, 1921.
(5) All expenses incurred by the General Trustees in the discharge of their duties under this Act, so far as such expenses are not otherwise provided for under this Act, shall be defrayed in such manner as the General Assembly may determine and the provisions of Section nineteen of the said Order of 1921 shall not apply to such expenses."

I understand that this Amendment will be accepted.

Amendment agreed to

CLAUSE 42. — (Church Collections)

Amendment made: Leave out the Clause. — [The Lord Advocate]

CLAUSE 46. — (Saving for obligations of relief.)

Amendment made: In page 40, lines 32 and 33, leave out the words "exceeds one shilling but." — [The Lord Advocate]

Orders of the Day — SIXTH SCHEDULE. — (Provisions relating to the Valuation of Teinds and the Surrender of Valued Teinds)

Sir HENRY CRAIK: I beg to move, in page 48, line 27, at the end, to insert the words
 and also to the Clerk of Teinds, who shaft communicate the same to any titular who has previously notified the Clerk of Teinds in writing that he desires to receive such intimation, and such titular shall have the same rights of objection and appeal as are, by the provisions of this Schedule, conferred on titulars in the cage of valuation by an heritor.
This Amendment will not raise the religious, political or metaphysical contentions that have been raised in connection with previous Amendments.
It becomes my duty to move this Amendment in the interests of one of the Universities which I have the honour to represent in this House. The Glasgow University holds teinds to the amount of about £6,000 per year. These teinds are subject to alteration and commutation, and to the application of various provisions. The alteration on revaluation may lead to a very serious diminution of the revenue of Glasgow University, which it has hitherto drawn from teinds, and which it holds as titular. It is my duty to stand up for the interests of this important educational endowment of the Glasgow University, especially having regard to the increased burdens placed upon the University.
All that we ask is that notification shall be given to the Clerk of Teinds, and that he shall communicate the proposal for the commutation of the teinds to any titular who has previously notified that he desires to receive such intimation. I do not think the Lord Advocate can believe that that is an unreasonable request on the part of the University. I am placed under the disability of not being able to enter as a lawyer into these complicated questions, which are beyond the intellectual range not only of myself but of many others in this House. I appeal to the Lord Advocate to listen to this claim on behalf of the University, with that consideration which he is usually prepared to show. I trust that I may have from a constituent of mine, the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home), who is a notable graduate of Glasgow University, some help in this proposal, which I am sure he will recognise is of value to the University.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: I cannot resist the moving appeal which has been made to me by my right hon. Friend. He has not attempted to explain the Amendment, but he has indicated that it is of too complicated a legal nature for him to enter upon any discussion. I am glad to think that there is no legal complication about the matter, and that I can state in a few sentences why I appeal to the Lord Advocate to give way. I recognise that if the Lord Advocate resists the appeal, it is impossible for us to carry the Amendment. I am sure that he will in no way be injuring his Bill if he consents to adopt the Amendment. The matter is simply this: The Glasgow University is the
titular in a large number of teinds. The heritor, as provided by this Bill, is to receive notice of any process of valuation, and the heritor has to give intimation, according to the terms of the Schedule, to the titular.
It is, as far as I know, an entirely unusual process in law that the petitioner should not give himself the requisite notice to the person who has been the respondent in the petition. Why it should be left to any respondent to hand a notice to the titular is more than I can understand. It will be perfectly simple that notice should be given to the titular. No doubt, the Lord Advocate will say that the titulars are not in many cases know-n. To meet that point, the Amendment suggests that notice shall be given to the Clerk of Teinds, who shall give the requisite notice to the titular, but only in those cases where the titular has given notice to the Clerk of Teinds that he wants such notice. As this is such a reasonable request, I find some difficulty in understanding why the Lord Advocate should refuse. it. I hope that the Amendment which has been proposed in such moving terms by my right hon. 'Friend will he agreed to.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I confess I am in some difficulty in understanding why this Amendment is moved, because the two things for which it asks are in the Bill now, as I pointed out in the Committee stage. The proceedings which are dealt with under paragraph 2 on page 45 of the Schedule are proceedings for valuation. These proceedings may be at the instance of a person called the heritor, or at the instance of the titular. If it is at the instance of the titular, then, in the case referred to by the right hon. Member who moved the Amendment, it will be the Glasgow University itself. If it is the heritor who raises the question of valuation, then he is the petitioner to whom the right hon. Gentleman refers, and, under paragraph 10 of the Schedule, he is bound to give notice to the titular.

Sir R. HORNE: That is not the case with which we are dealing.

The LORD ADVOCATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the Bill? Paragraph 10 says:

"A heritor may have his unvalued teinds valued or surrender valued teinds in accord-
acne with the provisions of this Schedule, whether he has or has not a heritable right to such teinds:

Provided that—
(a) Where the heritor proposes to have valued or to surrender any teinds to which he has no heritable right, he shall at the time when he gives notice of the appointment of a valuer or lodges a minute of surrender or a surrender as aforesaid intimate the appointment or the surrender in writing to the titular of the teinds"—
in this case, the Glasgow University—
 who shall have the same rights of objection and appeal "—
That is what is sought by the Amendment —
 "as are by the provisions of this Schedule conferred upon the minister of the parish or the General Trustees;

I cannot understand why they want to have them in twice, and accordingly I resist Amendment.

Amendment. negatived

7.0 P.M.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND(Sir John Gilmour): I have it in command from His Majesty to signify to the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purpose of The Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Bill, gives his consent, so far as His Majesty's interests are concerned, and the House may do therein as it thinks fit.
Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. BARR: In rising to oppose the Third Reading of this Measure, I wish to refer. in the first place, to some things that have transpired this afternoon. I desire to say that strangers in this House would hardly have known they were dealing with a Church by law established, and on which special State privileges have been conferred. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd) spoke of this as an agreement which had already been made between the heritors on the one hand and the Church of Scotland on the other; the debtor and the creditor as he said, omitting altogether the consideration that here is a Church by law established and by law State-endowed. No one would have supposed that there had ever
been a Church of England in Ireland, an Episcopal Church in Ireland, or a Church in Wales that had been in a similar position, and from the national endownments of which funds were voted for public purposes, for education, and for the poor, and that here in Scotland, under a precisely similar situation, we are giving none of those public funds at all to public purposes, but handing them all over to be the private property of a particular Church. The Lord Advocate was bold enough to say that those endowments had been recognised as the property of the Church of Scotland by all authorities, and I gather almost for all time. At this time of the afternoon, it would not become me to go at length into the authorities that I can quote on the other side, but I would mention Lord Robertson in the Prestonkirk case on 3rd February, 1903. In summing up that case, he said that the divines of the Roman Catholic Church have long sought to establish that these endowments, these teinds and other properties were theirs, and that the Protestant clergy after the Reformation had sought to establish the same claim, but, fortunately for the country, they were never able to succeed in that contention.
That is the evidence of a distinguished Judge who was himself a procurator of the Church of Scotland, and, therefore. his opinion gains additional value. I might take Milman, a famour preacher of the Church of England, who says that tithes were initiated by Imperial authority and enforced by Imperial power. Adam Smith, in his "Wealth of Nations," says that these are a real land tax, not voluntarily or spontaneously given by pious donors, but a real land tax. If I were to come to statesmen in this House, you would find that a long succession, both those of Conservative and Liberal professions and standing, have given the same clear judgment. Edward Burke said this was a tax of 2s. in the £. You have Sir Robert Peel saying that these were benefits conferred by the State. Lord Melbourne said they were national property. Disraeli used similar words, and W. H. Smith, a respected leader of the Conservative party, while he wished them to be retained for the Church, said they still were national property. That is one of our reasons for opposing this Measure. it takes national property, and
it treats it as if it were already the property of a particular Church.
A second line of objection to which I have already referred to-day, lies in the fact that in various Clauses of this Measure civil compulsion is employed to secure contributions for the Church. The power of the Sheriff is brought in—his summary powers to enforce payment in certain cases. That is most obnoxious to many in this House. We cannot conceive any proper definition of a religion under which it is right to compel, in matters of religion by civil force, payment for the promotion and support of a creed that a man does not himself believe. It seems to be opposed entirely to the principles that have long been held in Scotland, first by the United Presbyterians, then by the Free, and now by the United Free Church, that they were opposed to all continued dependence upon State support, and to all that were not freely given by the people themselves who believed in the doctrines to which they were subscribing. It is very far from the principle which we hold should obtain as to the means by which Christian men and Christian churches should support their ordinances and their buildings.
So obnoxious is this principle of coin pulsion in regard to buildings, that Sir Robert Finlay, when he was a Member of this House, and afterwards Lord Finlay, a Conservative, in his Bill in 1886 proposed to eliminate altogether any power of enforcement. In any case, it was not to be civilly enforced. The Lord Advocate, a few minutes ago, made a point that houses of the annual value of £28 might escape, but it does not alter the matter a bit in point of principle whether it is the small or large feuar who is brought in and compelled to subscribe to a religion of which he does not approve, compelled, by force of law, to support and repair buildings of a church of which he is not a member, and in which he does not believe. We are dealing with the United Free Church of Scotland, which, possibly, if it finds its difficulties removed, though it is very doubtful if it will, is to be united with the Church of Scotland after this legislation. Let me say with regard to the Church of Scotland that in 1903 they passed, almost unanimously, a resolution in support of the Nonconformist passive resistance in England in regard to the
Education Act. If now they should unite and adopt this Act, instead of sympathising with passive resisters, they would themselves be pounding the goods of any that are passive resisters in this sense in Scotland.
Some time ago, when we were discussing the political levy, the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. R. Mitchell) and myself were taunted from those other benches that we had declared ourselves for it, and, therefore, we must be strongly opposed to trade unions being compelled to subscribe under the political levy to views which they did not hold. That was brought against us. I want to say it will be time enough to use that objection when you find conscientious objectors to the political levy hailed before the sheriff, warrants taken out, their goods pounded, and they are obliged by force to give such a contribution. If you will make this Bill as free in its exemptions as the law relating to the political levy, then at once my objections fall to the ground, and I repair to Scotland to advocate a union of churches on that voluntary ground.
Is it denied, is it doubted, is it questioned that men are hailed before the sheriff and dealt with under the present law in this way? It happens not only regarding the repair of buildings; it happens with regard to the payment of stipend out of teinds. I hold in my hand an advertisement of a public roup of a man's goods, his roll-top desk, and table, and so forth, because, not agreeing with the principles of the Church of Scotland, he did not come forward to pay on a, rental of £70 amounts from £5 2s. in one case to £7 12s. in another case in four successive years. I should like to read to this House a letter to the minister of the parish, dated 8th January, 1921, in which he made his protest:
I should explain that I do not feel satisfied to support a form of religion of which I do not approve. Therefore, the sum named has been paid over to a non sectarian, social benefit fund instead. I think you will readily admit that public opinion in Scotland has for long recognised it to be unjust that a citizen should be called upon compulsorily to support a creed of which he does not approve. If Scotland had not been done out of her own independent Parliament in 1707, this obsolete Act would no doubt have been annulled many years ago.
I say more. If we had, as we had the right to have, our own Parliament sit
ting in Scotland at the present moment, this Measure would never have been passed into law. We object, in the third place, to this Measure because it conveys national property free of all Parliamentary control to be henceforth the property of a particular church. It has been a salutary principle in this country in the past that all grants, whether to public bodies or individuals, from Parliamentary sources, have been accompanied by Parliamentary control, and it ill becomes the Christian Church to break down that salutary principle and have these conveyed over, as the memorandum of the Church of Scotland says, in so many years free from any control by the State or the civil courts, or any other interference of heritors or other outside bodies. No wonder I was able to quote from Wallace and Miller, two esteemed and honoured leaders of the Church of Scotland, that this would be a very good bargain for the Church, union or no union. If you can take national property, and can convey it in this way to be private property, equally you can take private property and can convey it to be national property, and, after the precedent you have given, I am going back to Scotland to tell the miners that we made a mistake in our Nationalisation of Mines and Mineral Bill in saying that we would purchase all the mines. We should have told them, rather, to wait as our friends of the Church of Scotland waited for the incoming of a Government that would be friendly, and then have them conveyed, free of all control, to be their property in all time coming. You have set us a splendid precedent which might be of value in time to come. I close with the words of a great Liberal statesman. I am not going to make an appeal to the Liberal Benches, because there are so few of the Members here, but I am sure that they and those on this side will appreciate those words that John Bright used on 16th April, 1845:
 I shall hold myself to have read, thought and lived in vain if I vote for a measure which in the smallest degree shall give any further power or life to the principle of State endowment of religion, and in conclusion I would only exhort the dissenters of England—I would make my appeal broader, to adherents of religious equality ever3-where—to act in the same way and to stand by their own great pure and unassailable principle: for if they stand by
it manfully and work for it vigorously the time may come, nay it will come, when the principle will be adopted by the legislature of this country.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Now for over 16 days, in one form or another, the House of Commons has been discussing the thorny problem of Scottish historical theology, and all of us who have followed more or less silently the Debates must have been deeply impressed by the conspicuous ability and skill of my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate. He has conducted these Debates in a way which every parliamentarian relishes, and I think it due to him to say that those of us who come from Scotland and admire his metaphysical mind as well as Ilk parliamentary mind have taken notice of the eminence of his ability in those respects. I think it somewhat unfortunate that this Bill should appear before the House of Commons as it is now. By that I mean that church union in Scotland is receiving the sanction of Parliament not by this Bill, but by another Bill which ought to be taken along with this.
Outsiders listening to the Debates in the House of Commons would think, as some hon. Members above the Gangway have suggested, that we are trying to divide what is called the loaves and fishes, and that this is the purpose of this Bill and of church union in Scotland. That is not the case. An extension of union in Scotland may not be claimantly demanded, but those who know Scottish life well know that there has been for a long time a sincere and honest demand for union of this kind, and that the desire for union has been expressed not in the House of Commons alone, but outside the House of Commons in the quiet corners of the country villages and the quiet homes of the people of Scotland. I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for one of the divisions of Edinburgh who said that the Scottish people are now heartily tired of this procrastination and that the Scottish people as a whole, irrespective of the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and others, are sincerely and deeply anxious that religion should come out of the sphere of dissention into the paths of peace.
I am particularly anxious as to one of the Clauses of the Bill. An Amendment was moved by an hon. Member above the
Gangway in opposition to one Clause, I think it is Clause 19. It deals with the Exchequer grants. It was a very significant statement which the Lord Advocate made, and in my judgment it was a complete reply to the policy of those who have been speaking in denunciation of it. This Clause does not introduce any fresh charge. As I understand it these grants, which are, I hope, in the course of time to be redeemed, were charges on the hereditary revenues of Scotland, and some of these charges were Royal grants, and these charges upon the hereditary revenues of Scotland were in no degree in the interest of one church or another. They were in the interests or the public as a whole, and the Church was used as an agent for the distribution of these funds in accordance with the best interests of the public. I was glad to hear the Lord Advocate say that he regarded, and that the Church of Scotland regarded, these charges now as a heritage of the Church held in trust for the people.
I represent with my colleagues from the North of Scotland the inaccessible parts of Scotland, and those parts have always been treated by this ancient Assembly with special favour. They have been treated differently in parochial, county, educational and religious matters, and a striking fact which the Lord Advocate shewed in the course of his very able speech on the Money Resolution of this Bill was that the old kings of Scotland, and the old kings of the United Kingdom, felt that they had a. special care of the inaccessible parts of the Highlands. In those parts of the Highlands there are churches which have been administering what are called the rites and ordinances of the Church, and in the Gaelic-speaking parts they have been looked after to a very large extent by a church which is called the Church of Scotland Free. I am anxious that the Lord Advocate and the Government should do everything they can, in the further course of this Bill, and as a result of this Bill, to see to it that those ordinances will be assisted as they have been assisted in the past by public grants, which as the Lord Advocate pointed out, are in the possession of the Church of Scotland as a trust for public purposes.
I am anxious that this Bill should leave the House of Commons with the blessing of the House of Commons. I think that
we ought to rise above party in this matter. I can see myself making speeches, such as I have heard above the Gangway this afternoon, on platforms for political purposes with some effect, but I think that the time has now come in the twentieth century when we ought to make an appeal to the higher selves of not only the House of Commons, but of Scotland as a whole, and I should like this Bill to get a unanimous Third Reading in the House of Commons, because I believe that the Bill is what is meant to be a genuine step in the right direction for a real genuine church union in our native land.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: I am very glad that the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) has made this appeal to the House of Commons. I think that it would be a pity that such a Bill as this should go through the House of Commons with any ill-feeling being harboured. I am not going to enter into any controversial matters now, but one would imagine from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) that this was a disestablishment question, because most of what he has said to-day applies chiefly to disestablishment. He also asked this House to make sure that there would be absolute equality of religious denominations, not only in Scotland, but everywhere else. If I thought for a moment that I was in any way endangering religious equality, either in Scotland or anywhere else, I would vote against this Bill, but I am persuaded that I am not doing anything to endanger religious equality. I have always stood for religious equality, and I hope to stand for it while I am on this earth. But we are not now going to discuss all those controversial matters that have been up on Second Reading, and were discussed very thoroughly in the Committee. We should try now to point the way to the churches, how they ought to act now that they are about to get this Bill.
Anybody who takes an unbiassed view of the Bill as it stands is bound to admit that the Church of Scotland has given up a very great deal. We are not discussing anything which she is to get. All we are discussing to-night is how she can best make arrangements whereby religious equality should exist, and whereby so far
as possible we shall get rid of State interference in order that we might join up with our great sister Church and the Free Church of Scotland. Everybody must admit that she has given a. great deal. Like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty, I am glad to say how delighted we all are with the skill and the toleration with which the Lord Advocate has piloted this Bill through the House. I am not unmindful of his great antagonist. There are few men in Scotland to-day who know more of Church history than the hon. Member for Motherwell, but, as I said on Second Reading, he knows it so well that he knows how to bring in points that have no point at all, if the House will excuse the contradiction, and he knows how to present them so skilfully that he tries to get the House to look at this Bill as raising a different issue altogether from that which it really embodies, but I am certain that the people of Scotland will agree that there has been a magnanimity and toleration among the promoters of the Bill which very few people expected when we began to discuss this Bill.

Mr. MAXTON: Among the Opposition.

Mr. J. BROWN: I do not know anything that the hon. Member gave away so far as the Church of Scotland is concerned, but I am not going to enter into controversy, I am unequal to a controversy with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) in his own particular and special line. What I am anxious to do is to try to get the people of Scotland, and the Members of this House to whatever party they belong, to look to the good of religious life in Scotland rather than to enter into any of the controversies that have raged around this Bill. Over and over again it has been said that we are out for the loaves and fishes, but anybody who knows the situation is aware that the loaves and fishes have never been the consideration with those who are in favour of the Bill. I wish to deal with another remark which has been made to the effect that the Church of Scotland waited until a Conservative Government came into power in order to get this Bill. That is absolutely untrue. We have been working at this Bill for at least 16 years. We have been trying to get it through, and the party to which I belong would have brought in the Bill if they had been in office longer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Had there been no Election I"] Had there.
been no Election, I may remind some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. R. Mitchell) that they would not have been here [Interruption] 1 gather that the, hon. Member for Bridgeton thinks that I was nearly not being here either. It is perfectly true that I suffer from being between two fires, but we are not now discussing my personal position. What I am anxious about is the Bill.

Mr. MAXTON: It was not popular in South Ayrshire

Mr. BROWN:: The Bill is popular enough in South Ayrshire, and so is the Member for South Ayrshire, but I wish to get. every Member of this House to believe that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will give Scotland an opportunity to go forward in her religious life. Anyone who has religion at heart, and who wants to see true Christianity ruling in the land, should be glad to see such a Bill become law at the earliest possible moment. It has been said that the people of Scotland do not want the Bill, and that it has been foisted on the Church of Scotland itself and on this House. May I remind hon. Members that when this Bill becomes an Act we shall be just at the beginning of church union. All of the machinery has to be put into motion. It will be taken as, and it has already been called, a provisional Measure; it will go before kirk sessions and congregations, it will go to the presbyteries, and we shall have majorities in those bodies deciding upon it before the General Assembly deals with it; at all. No hon. Member need be afraid that every provision has not been made for a constitutional settlement of this great question.
I do not desire to speak at length on this subject. If one were to deal with it fully one would occupy far more time than is at our disposal. I would only say that we have now a great opportunity. I am certain the ministers and leaders of the Church of Scotland will rise to the full height of that opportunity. This Measure will break down: the partitions that have stood so long between. the two great Presbyterian bodies, and, if I know the minds of the promoters of the Bill at all, I know it is their hearty desire that union should not cease even when it has been consummated as between the Church of Scotland and the United Free Church. We want to have in Scot-
land a people united in their religious ordinances as in everything else. I am satisfied this Bill gives us the opportunity for achieving that end. I should never have spoken a word in favour of this Dill, had I not been anxious to promote true religion in our country, and I believe this Bill, which marks the coming together of these two great churches, will give a lead to other churches and assist us in our religious life. Never was there a time in the history of this Empire when we needed true religion more. I said in another place that the passing of this Act would be one of the greatest Christian acts of this century. I believe that to be the ease. I am very glad that we are now within measurable distance of the Third Reading, and I wish T could persuade hon. Members behind me to give the Third Reading as a unanimous finding. It would give us a chance to consolidate all the religious denominations in our country and give true Christianity an opportunity of doing that work which its founder expected every one of us to do.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: The Members on these benches are entitled to give some credit to the Lord Advocate and the Secretary for Scotland for the way in which they have conducted this Measure and answered the points raised by those who are opposed to the Bill. We can all agree in recognising the sincerity of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. James Brown), while we may, at. the same time, doubt the wisdom of the views which he holds so sincerely. I am not so much concerned with the results which he has described as being likely to arise from this Bill. If I thought a Bill passed by this Parliament would have the effect which the hon. Member for Ayrshire believes it would have, then I would be quite willing to go into the same Lobby with the hon. Member, but I and those who think with me feel certain that religious unity and the union of the churches is not to he. promoted by a Bill of this character. Religious unity in Scotland must first show itself in the hearts of those who advocate religion. When that happens, no Act of Parliament can either prevent or assist the unity which is likely to follow. It is in the hearts of the people that unity must arise and not in any Bill passing through this House. The hon. Member
for South Ayrshire said they had been working upon the projects contained in this Bill for 16 years. It is remarkable, if that is the case, that no one thought it advisable to mention such an all-important question as the hon. Member maintains this to be in the election addresses issued at the last election. I challenged contradiction upon that statement from any Scottish Member who was listening to the Second Reading Debate.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: It was taken for granted.

Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire interjects that it was taken for granted. It was taken so much for granted, indeed, that nobody knew of it, and nobody had any idea about it until it came up in this House. In the interval since the Second Reading I have taken the opportunity during my journeyings to Scotland to look up such of the election addresses of Scottish candidates as were published in the Scottish Press, in order to see how many announced their intention of supporting it. I cannot find in any election address which was advertised in the Press of Scotland, any reference whatever to the Bill, or any promise to, support it on the part of candidates. It is all fudge and nonsense to say that this question has been before the people of Scotland for the last 16 years. It may have been brought up in church sessions and in academic discussions between members of the churches when they happened to meet, but as for being a political question, discussed and debated among the people of Scotland. I submit that very few people of Scotland bothered themselves about it or knew anything about it until it was brought up on the Floor of this House.

Mr. MAXTON: Not even then.

Mr. MACLEAN: They know about it now. I do not. think it necessary or advisable to continue at great length the Debate on the Third Beading considering the manner in which, during the previous stages, those who support the Government have voted against the proposals put forward by the opponents of the Bill, but I would once again refer to the position which I took up in the Second Reading Debate. Nothing has happened during the ensuing stages to make me alter my opinion by one single jot. I stand where
I stood when I raised the point that this Bill is unconstitutional and that this House had no right to accept it upon its first introduction. I have since looked up Statutes and legal opinions which, with all deference to the Lord Advocate, are quite as important and authoritative as the statement made by him on the Second Reading, and all go to show that I was correct in my attitude on that occasion. This House has no right to interfere as it is doing in this Bill, with the Church of Scotland unless a Parliament is at the same time sitting in Scotland and discussing a similar Bill. That was the position taken up by the Parliament of Scotland which passed the Treaty of Union and which insisted, before a union of Parliaments took place between the two countries, that the Act of Settlement should be incorporated in the Treaty of Union passed by this House. You, Mr. Speaker, gave me a ruling in which you said that this House was the authority over all. That. I submit, was not the case as regards the Treaty of Union. It was passed by two Parliaments. One Parliament adjourned and joined in with this Parliament. Before this Parliament can dismiss or alter or revoke any agreement arrived at by the two Parliaments which brought about the Union, a similar Parliament to the Parliament which then existed in Scotland must be convoked, since that. Parliament was never prorogued but merely adjourned. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that your ruling in which you said that this House would, on the Second Reading, discuss that position and make it clear. is a ruling which was not borne out by the facts. Your ruling was as follows:
The contentions of the two hon. Members
—
that is, the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) and myself—
 may well be put forward in the course of the Debate on the merits of the Bill. I. myself, hare no opinion, of course, as to whether this is a good Bill or otherwise. As I understand, the point is put to me that this House is disabled from proceeding with this Bill because of what has been quoted. I cannot uphold that contention, because this House has in past times frequently changed other Acts by Bills of a similar character.
I may submit, in parenthesis, that it has never broken a Treaty made with another country which had a separate Parliament. That, at least, has always been to
the honour of this House. You went on, Mr. Speaker, to say:
 It would be a serious thing to hold that this Parliament was not supreme. Certainly I do not uphold the contention that 1 have any right to stop the proceedings on this Bill."— [OFFICIAL REPORT,10th February, 1925; col. 58, Vol. 180.]
Now I submit, as I have all along submitted, that this House is not supreme in the question of the Treaty of Union with Scotland. This House was a partner, an equal partner, not supreme, not the senior partner, but a partner upon equal terms with the Parliament of Scotland, which assisted it in bringing about the Treaty of Union, and I again insist that this Parliament—and even the Lord Advocate himself practically admits it by the quotation he made when he spoke, not of the legal position, but of the moral position—has no right to pass this Bill as, in my opinion and in the opinion of all authorities on the matter that I have studied, it is a breach of the Treaty of Union.

Sir R. HORNE: I will not detain the House more than a very few moments in expressing my great personal gratification that. this Bill should have reached the important stage with which we are dealing this evening. It will, in my view, he the precursor of a very notable episode in the Scottish Members with regard to this particular Bill is very obvious. Lord Haldane had, in a previous Session, introduced into the House of Lords a Bill on behalf of the Labour Government dealing with this very subject on very much the same lines, and he stated, expressing himself as speaking for the whole Government, of which he was a Member—

Mr. MACLEAN: No.

Sir R. HORNE: He stated, deliberately so expressing himself, that no body of opinion comparable to that which was to be found for this Bill could be found for any other which had been introduced into Parliament. He went further, and, upon the matter of the terms which were being given to the
Church of Scotland, he said that these were the least which were compatible with justice to the Church. In saying that, he was speaking on behalf of the Labour Government.

Mr. MACLEAN: No.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: He was a Liberal, and he is a Liberal yet.

Sir R. HORNE: I do not wish to take up time by quoting his remarks, but I find it difficult to believe that the Labour party can, in face of these asseverations on the part of one of their most important Ministers in introducing a Bill of this character, vote against the Third Reading of this Measure to-night. The only difference between Lord Haldane's Bill and the present Bill is that now the Church has given much larger concessions than were previously given in the Labour party's Bill. These concessions have been given in order to get rid of any possible hostility of feeling that could be held in any part of Scotland or among any section of the community towards the great Measure which we are hoping to pass. Why has this been done? It has been done in the hope of bringing reunion to the severed Church, which is very dear to the people of Scotland. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), in the course of one of those very witty speeches with which he is constantly delighting the House, said there was no public opinion in Scotland in favour of this Bill, but I think he is just as little in touch with that religious feeling in Scotland as he is with those itinerant preachers who travel in the North of Scotland.
He suggested that this was a Measure devised entirely by theological politicians, but I beg this House to remember that the great movement which is reaching fruition to-day began, not with the clergy, but with the laity of Scotland, who enshrined, in a great memorial which was presented to the people of Scotland, many long years ago, their aspirations after just such a union as today we hope may soon be consummated, that desire to see all people in Scotland holding the same religious doctrines brought together, because it was nothing less than a scandal that people who were professing exactly the same faith and a doctrine which did not differ in. any
degree at all should be fighting each other and wasting each other's efforts. That is a condition of things of which they wanted to get rid, and, for my part, I believe that this Bill will bring about this union which we all desire. I think that such a union will have the in evitable effect of quickening the religious life of Scotland and of bringing to the cause of Christianity in our midst a new interest and a new inspiration.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I want to make a protest in regard to this particular Measure. In the first place, what we have to recognise is that the Labour party, as was practically acknowledged by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown), when in office paved the way for this case being given away. That makes the situation exceedingly difficult for the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) in leading the opposition, as he has done, not only with remarkable ability, but with a depth of sincerity and a standing up for that cause with which his name has been greatly celebrated throughout Scotland. We do not in any way minimise our appreciation of the Lord Advocate for the capacity with which he has handled the Measure, but we feel for those who have had the task to face, as they have had to do under these particular circumstances, that it is not at all creditable to those who formerly in Scotland represented that very aggressive movement known as the movement for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church of Scotland. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire has said: "We want a blessing to fall on the Bill," but you cannot very well have a blessing if you have still carried through the process of retaining, though in a camouflaged system, the actual State connection which provided the real strength of the case against the Church of Scotland as an established Church.
You have also to remember that the Liberal party has put in a, very poor record in later years on this question. I find, in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, that a few of those who are very closely indentified with the Liberal party have been expressing themselves as somewhat disappointed with the efforts that have been put forward in this connection by some of the Members of the Labour party. But what are we to say
of the Liberal party, which made this one of its strong planks, and which endeavoured to push the movement, that movement which was so far ahead in Scotland that in truth, especially had we got a Parliament of our own, this Measure would never have had a look in. The business of the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church would have gone through. The real thing lying behind this Measure is not the question of deepening the spiritual life. Any minister and any earnest member of the Church knows that it is not the securing of financial power that will give you your driving spiritual strength and impetus. The real thing lying behind it is that the people are receding from the Church. They are losing faith in the Church, and the management of the Church, especially at headquarters, is beginning to realise that there needs to be a bringing together of the people collectively to provide the necessary numerical and financial strength.
We have read, in the old Book, that if you built upon sand you know what is going to happen. These are the sands of time that are passing away, and hon. Members know it very well. I would just refer to the fact that even in the United Free Church the hon. Member for Motherwell has made the admission that there is not a very enthusiastic demand for the Bill. We had the Rev. Mr. Shilling-law, speaking in a recent meeting of the Perth Presbytery, bringing out the central fact that in truth the Church is not finding now the applications of men to join the Ministry, the explanation being that the emoluments are not sufficient to meet the requirements of the appointment, and that the people are losing their grip upon the Church. That is where we come to the actualities of the case, and when we remember that the Amendment, which was put forward from our side in Committee, to make sure that this Bill would only take effect after the union had been consummated, was rejected it proves this, that, as was quoted by the hon. Member for Motherwell, this is good business for the Church. I commend that to the business men on the other side. That good business is the financial deal, the pact, the intention of the financial forces.
I believe that there will he better prospects for the Church from the spiritual point of view when it sheds a consider
able amount of its financial strength, when it gives evidence of its self- sacrificial devotion to the objects which it professes to have in view. The man of the world rightly asks from the Church, the same as in the business world: "Give us proof of your faith, give us evidence of your determination to fight the forces of the evil one, those forces of selfishness and gross material- ism: give us evidence of that and we will believe in you, and we will have a better likelihood of lining up with the Church." Instead of that, the passing through of this Measure, I believe, is going still more to stultify the movement towards union, in the sense that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire has particularly in view. This is really and truly a darker day for Scotland, ecclesiastically, by the passing of this Measure. What you are actually finding now, in some of the churches that are talking in sup- port of it., is that people are leaving the organised churches and constituting evangelical movements, entirely voluntary, and conducting services, even sacra- mental services. The churches are objecting, to some extent, from the commercial point of view, because it is detracting numerically from their strength, but in those smaller bodies
where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
You do not find Christ particularly con-corned about the construction of a Measure of this nature being carried through by a representative of the law. The real strength that is to come into Scottish and English and Welsh national life will come from a driving power that is regardless of temporal values and looks to great eternal interests. Without this what you are constructing now will be of no value at all.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I wish, first of all, on behalf of the Government, to thank the House for the very careful and prolonged consideration that has been given to this very important Measure. I will not now attempt to add anything to the numerous speeches that I have had to make on the Bill. I wish to associate myself with what was said by the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir It Horne) as to the advantages to the people of Scotland that will result from this Measure.It is one of the greatest
Measures of social reform for Scotland passed for many years. We have come through bad times in many ways. We have had the Disestablishment Movement. It is extraordinary how dead that is now. We have gradually come towards this movement for unity. May I here quote two passages which seem very appropriate? The first is from Dr. Martineau:
 It is a law of all long-lived nations that the feuds of history die out, while its deeper unities, after hibernating through some winter of discontent, wake with the returning sunshine and assert this life again.
The other is a sentence from a speech of Mr. Wallace in the General Assembly, to which reference has been made and from which a distinctly abbreviated excerpt has been taken. Mr. Wallace, in dealing with the various sides of the question, pointed out that there were advantages in the one and disadvantages in the other, and I cannot do better than read his closing sentence:
 To Reverend Fathers I am only entitled to suggest that, recognising existing interests are adequately protected, they rely upon the laity in future to protect their successors, as in the past they protected their forebears. To my brethren of the laity, I am as one of themselves entitled to speak more plainly. It is their duty and their privilege to undertake these further obligations, determined to meet them in a full and generous spirit, if not with the certainty, yet in the confident hope, that thereby they will play their part in bringing to an end those divisions among Presbyterians which not only interfere with the religious life of the people, but which also embitter opinion and create divisions in all sorts of social and public matters—divisions which are the curse of Scotland.
The House has an opportunity of playing its part, and a great part, in helping that goal to be arrived at, and I ask hon. Members to do it now.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: 1 apologise for intervening, for it is generally assumed that no Englishman or Welshman dare interfere with anything Scottish. The only apology I make is that my Scottish friends would not admit that they had no right to interfere in anything that was English or Welsh. If this be the greatest measure of social reform ever introduced into this House, all I can say is that I hope there will be many more to follow it immediately.

Mr.MAXTON: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Divide, divide!

Mr. MAXTON: I think hon. Members will realise that any arrangements which we have made on this side have been kept honourably. I understand we have still ten minutes left.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know whether or not there will be a Division, but it was understood that the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill, which is next on the Paper, would be taken at 8.15.

Mr. MAXTON: The only point I want to make is that a reflection was cast. on those who opposed this Bill by the suggestion that, because Lord Haldane introduced this Bill in another place in the last Parliament it was to be assumed that those of us who sit on these benches supported the Measure. That is Far from

being the case, and the fact that it was introduced in the House of Lords was a very clear indication of that in the view of those who sat behind the Labour Government at that time. I ask the House to believe that those who have been strenuous in their opposition to the Bill in this Parliament would have been just as strenuous in opposition in the last Parliament.

The LORD ADVOCATE: It was introduced in the House of Commons afterwards.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes. 274; Noes, 117.

Division No.99.]
AYES.
[8.7 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cobb. Sir Cyril
Goff, Sir Park


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gower, Sir Robert


Albery, Irving James
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Grotrian, H. Brent


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cope, Major William
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Allen, J. Sandeman(L'pool, W. Derby)
Couper, J. B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cowan, D. M.(Scottish Universities)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander, F. W.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C.(Antrim)
Hanbury, C.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Atholl, Duchess of
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Harland, A.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Harrison, G. J. C.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Crook, C. W.F
Hartington, Marquess of


Balnlel, Lord
Crooke, J. Smedley(Derltend)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Haslam, Henry C.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Hawke, John Anthony


Boamlsh, Captain T. P. H.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Bellalrs, Commander Carlyon W.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)


Berry, Sir George
Oavidson, J.(Hertfd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Bethell, A.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Blundell, F. N.
Davies, Ma|. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovll)
Hennlker-Hughan, Vlce-Adm. Sir A


Boothby, R. J. G
Davies, Sir Thomas (Clrencester)
Herbert, S.(York,N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by)


Bourne. Captain Robert Croft
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hilton, Cecil


Boyd-Carpentcr, Major A.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S J. G.


Brass, Captain W.
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cllve
Drewe, C.
Hopkins.J. W. W.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hopkinson, A.(Lancaster, Mossley)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Edwards, John H. (Accrlngton)
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Ellis, R. G.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whlteh'n)


Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Elveden, Viscount
Hume, Sir G. H.


Brown, Brlg.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hurd, Percy A.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Fairfax. Captain J. G.
Hutchison,G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Falls, Sir Charles F.
Illffe, Sir Edward M.


Bullock, Captain M.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Jacob, A. E.


Burman, J. B.
Fermoy, Lord
Jephcott, A. R.


Burton, Colonet H. W.
Flclden, E. B.
Joynson-Hlcks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Kidd, J.(Linlithgow)


Campbell, E. T.
Fleming, D. P.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Cassels, J. D.
Ford, P. J.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Forestier-Walker, L.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Forrest, W,
Lamb, J. Q.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn(Aston)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.


Chadwlck, Sir Robert Burton
Fraser, Captain lans
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Chapman, Sir s.
Fromantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Loder, J. de V.


Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Gadle, Lieut-Col. Anthony
Looker, Herbert William


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Ganzonl, Sir John
Lougher, L.


Christie, J. A.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Luce, Major-Gen, Sir Richard Harman


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Gee, Captain R.
Lumley, L. R.


Clarry, Reginald George
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Lynn, Sir Robert J.


Clayton, G. C.
Gllmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Pielou, D. P.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Pilcher, G.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Maclntyre, lan
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Styles, Captain H. Walter


McLean, Major A.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Macmilian, Captain H.
Ralne, W.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Ramsden, E.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James L.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Thomson, Sir W.Mltchell(Croydon,S.)


Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Tichfield, Major the Marquess of


Maklns, Brigadier-General E.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Malone, Major P. B.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Rice, Sir Frederick
Waddington, R.


Margesson, Captain D.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wallace, CaptainD.E.


Marrlott, Sir J. A. R.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Meyer, Sir Frank
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Rye, F. G.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Salmon, Major L.
Wells, S. R.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
White, Lieut. Colonel G. Dalryrmple


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C
Savory, S.S
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Cllve
Shepperson, E. W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Murchlson, C. K.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Nelson, Sir Frank
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Neville, R. J.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Womersley, W. J.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Skelton, A. N.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Smith-Carlngton, Neville W.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Smithers, Waldron
Wood, Sir Klngsley (Woolwich, W.)


Nuttall, Eills
Somervllle, A. A. (Windsor)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Oakley, T.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Spender Clay, Colonel H
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)



Perkins. Colonel E. K.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Major Hennessy and Mr. F. C.


Peto, G.(Somerset, Frome)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Thomson.


Philipson, Mabel
Strickland, Sir Gerald


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayes, John Henry
Smillie, Robert


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hlllsbro')
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Rennie(Penlstone)


Barker, G.(Monmouth, Abertiliery)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snell, Harry


Barr, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stamford, T. W


Broad, F. A
Jones, Morgan(Caerphilly)
Stephen, Campbell


Bromfield, William
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontyprldd)
Sutton, J. E.


Bromley, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Taylor, R. A.


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clowes, S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thomas. Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Thomson, Treveiyan (Mlddleshro. W.)


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Pialstow)


Cove, W. G.
Lindley, F. W.
Thurtle, E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lowth, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Treveiyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Macklnder, W.
Varley, Frank B.


Day, Colonel Harry
Maclean, Neil(Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S. P.


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Duncan, C.
Maxton, James
Warne, G. H.


Dunnlco, H.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermllne)


Fenby, T. D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Murnln, H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Westwood, J.


Gillett, George M.
Palin, John Henry
Whiteley, W.


Gosling, Harry
Paling, W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Greenall, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Potts, John S.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Groves, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grundy, T. W.
Riley, Ben
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Ritson, J.
Windsor, Walter


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Wright, W.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred



Hall, G. H.(Merthyr Tydvll)
Scrymgeour, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES —


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Sexton, James
Mr. Klrkwood and Mr. T. 


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Johnston.


Hayday, Arthur
Sitch, Charles H.



Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I have a rather difficult task to-night, because the Bill which I have to introduce is a long and somewhat complicated one. But I may tell hon. Members that it is not nearly so abstruse as it looks at first sight. There is a very short time in which to discuss it, and as I know very many hon. Members wish to speak, I am going to be as brief as I possibly can, in the hope of inciting other hon. Members to a similar display of self-denial. For that reason I will not weary the House with any going over the history of this question. I would only remark that it is necessary that we should pass this Teachers (Superannuation) Bill this year before the temporary Act expires—in the case of England on 1st April next, and in the case of Scotland, I think, on 30th June this year.
While this Bill, to which I ask the House to give a Second Reading, does not affect Scotland, yet the Scottish Bill will have to be introduced following upon it, and following similar lines. Secondly, I would remind the House that we are legislating on the Report of the Departmental Committee under the Chairmanship of Lord Emmott. This Committee was appointed by the Coalition Government in 1922. They reported in October, 1923. On that Report we are now acting. I should like to take this opportunity of saying how much the Government, and this House, are indebted to Lord Emmott and the members of his Committee—and especially to Lord Emmott's chairmanship—for the very able work which they have done in a very complicated question, and the very able and comprehensive Report which they have produced. I am now going to give the House a brief summary of the Bill.
In a Bill of this kind, succeeding, as it does, the Superannuation Bill of 1918, it is impossible to avoid a certain amount of reference, but we have tried so far as possible to avoid the evil of legislation by reference, and I think we have succeeded to a large extent. The superannuation scheme which we present to the
House is contributory and compulsory. Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill define what teachers come within its scope. Generally speaking, they are teachers employed after 1st April next in schools provided, or assisted, out of public funds, except teachers who did not accept the scheme of 1918. Here I should like to add that it has been represented to me that a certain number of teachers, who did not accept the scheme of 1918, might possibly wish to accept this scheme, and I am considering that point. Clause 9 imposes on all teachers the obligation to contribute the teacher to contribute 5 per cent. of his salary, and the employer of the teacher to contribute 5 per cent. The employer's contribution is postponed until the year 1928, and thereafter the contribution of the local education authority ranks for grant from the Board of Education at the same rate as the salary. The contributions of the other employers of non-rate-aided but grant-aided schools will be appropriately dealt with under grant Regulations. The result of this is to divide the contributions between the teachers, the local authorities and the Exchequer, roughly, in the proportion of 5, 2 and 3, instead of the proportions recommended by the Emmott Committee of 5,2½ and 2½ This is slightly to the advantage of the local authorities.
In return for these contributions, the teacher is entitled to certain benefits which are set forth in Clauses 3, 4, 5 and 12. Put briefly, these benefits are as follow: In the first place, superannuation allowance at the age of 60 for the teacher who has performed not less than 30 years' service, of which not less than 10 years must have been service in respect of which contributions have been paid, or, alternatively, service before the commencement of the Act in schools which were provided or assisted out of public funds. That service is known as "recognised service." Provision is made for reducing the qualifying period to 10 years in certain cases, in particular, in three classes of cases—cases where the teacher entered the profession late in life, cases where the teachers retire early on the ground of infirmity, and cases of married women generally speaking pension is payable only on years of service in respect of which contributions have actually been paid or on recognised service, though other service known as "qualifying service" can he reckoned
towards the 30 years for purposes of entitlement. Secondly, there are short-service gratuities for teachers who retire on the ground of infirmity, and death gratuities for teachers of not less than five years recognised or qualifying service. Fourthly, there is the right of the teacher at any time on retirement from service to receive a return of his contributions with compound interest at the rate of 3 per cent. in lieu of benefit.
The benefits which I have mentioned are, generally speaking, the benefits which were recommended by the Emmott Committee. The conditions of those benefits differ slightly from the conditions proposed by the Emmott Committee. I will not weary the House with the differences because I have, as I need hardly say, been in very close consultation with the representatives of the teachers during the last few weeks, and I think I may claim that the conditions now contained in the Bill are, generally speaking, satisfactory to the teachers, even where they depart from the recommendations of the Emmott Report. There is, however, one point that I am considering, namely, whether it is possible to ease the period of qualification, the period of 30 years, to meet cases of early retirement on other grounds than actual infirmity, especially in the case of women teachers. I hope to be able to do that, though I cannot pledge myself at this moment.
As I am dealing with benefits, may I refer to a point which has given rise to a certain amount of misunderstanding? Clause 12 of the Bill which gives the teacher the right to a return of contributions, gives an absolute right to the return of contributions, and nothing in the first paragraph of the First Schedule, if hon. Members will turn to that—it is numbered 6—gives the Board any right to withhold the return of contributions from the teacher who has made the contributions when he has retired from service. I want to make that clear, because it has been supposed that the first paragraph of the First Schedule gave the Board some undefined right to withhold that return of contributions. That is not the case; the teacher's right to a return is absolute.

Mr. HARRIS: Could the right hon. Gentleman make it clear about Clause 12, because the Schedule says:
 Nothing in this Act shall give any person an absolute right to any superannuation allowance or gratuity.

Lord E. PERCY: Precisely. It does not mention a return of contributions. That is my point. The return of contributions to the teacher is an absolute right. Clause 10 defines the basis upon which superannuation is to be calculated, namely, on the average salary for the last five years, a system that is fairly familiar in superannuation schemes.
Now I come to a rather more important and novel part of this Bill. Clauses 13, 14 and 20 are designed, in various ways, to facilitate freedom of movement in the teaching profession. The object of Clause 13, which deals with what is called approved external service is, generally speaking, this—that where a teacher leaves a service within the scope of the superannuation scheme and goes into ether educational service his pension shall be calculated, not upon his salary when he left service under the scheme but on his final salary in the service to which he is transferred, which' is, of course, a great benefit. Clause 14 enables teachers who take responsible administrative posts under local education authorities to continue to contribute under the Act.

Mr. BROMLEY: Before the right hon. Gentleman passes from Clause 14, may I ask if Sub-section (2) of Clause 14 does not rather penalise the very people he is speaking of regarding de-valuation of their past services? Will he explain that more fully to the HOUSE?

Lord E. PERCY: The question of the de-valuation of back service of existing organisers—and it refers only to persons who are now in administrative posts—is a question of how far it is fair to ask the taxpayer, who under this Bill bears the whole cost of all back service—back service is not covered by contributions at all—to bear the cost of superannuation of organisers who many years ago have left the teaching service for the administrative service without any prospect of superannuation from the Exchequer at all. That is a point which, I know, will be dealt with in Committee. I need hardly say I have heard it frequently. I do not think it is fair to throw the whole burden of back service on the taxpayer. I think what we propose, de-valuation by 0 per cent., is all that it is fair to throw on the taxpayer, but if the local authority
which hasex hypothesiappointed him to an organising position, to a post of responsibility, and has provided no superannuation for him at all, if the local authority, or the organiser himself, is prapared to defray the cost of the other half of the, pension I should be perfectly ready, of course, to provide, against that contribution, pension for the full back service; but this limits the liability of the taxpayer.

Mr. SHEPPERSON: rose—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I think it is usual to allow a Minister in charge of a Bill to make his statement without too many interruptions.

Lord E. PERCY: I sympathise with the desire of the hon. Member, but I think it would be best that I should proceed. To go on with the Clauses which are designed to secure freedom of movement, Clause 20 empowers the Board to apply the Bill to non grant-aided schools, including proprietary schools, to schools under Government Departments other than the Board, and to make reciprocal arrangements with the Dominions. 1 would like to say that I intend to make full use of the powers given me under Clause 20, and the fact that I am only empowered by the Bill to make schemes does not mean that I propose to postpone the making of schemes. In this matter of securing freedom of movement in the teaching service, we have gone somewhat beyond the recommendations of the Emmott Committee, but I do not think anyone will quarrel with us for doing That. I think people will rather count it to us for righteousness, on the ground that it is essential to secure the moral unification, as distinct from the administrative unification of the service of education.
There is one recommendation of the Emmott Committee which is not contained in the Bill, namely, the recommendation for an advisory council. The House will see in Clause 17 a recognition of the fact that the Board will need advice and will call for advice in making rules. I am considering whether this provision in the Bill should not be strengthened, but I think there is a disadvantage in multiplying statutory committees. There is some difficulty in providing in a Statute for the due representation of local authorities
and the teaching profession on a particular advisory council, and that is why I have not put the provision for the advisory council actually into the Bill. I can assure the House that I am quite ready to consider that question upstairs. I should in. practice appoint an Advisory Committee to go through all the rules which have to be issued in order to get this Bill started, and I shall certainly appoint such an Advisory Committee whether it is actually required by the Bill or not.
There will doubtless be in Committee upstairs and to-night many claims put forward on behalf 'of particular persons or classes of officials or teachers not entirely covered by the terms of this Bill. I have considered a. good many of these proposals and I am quite prepared to consider them again, but I am bound to resist proposals which would throw on the taxpayer an unfair burden in respect of back service, which would extend the scope of the Bill to persons who are not in any reasonable sense teachers, and also proposals which would tend to discriminate unfairly in favour of certain teachers against other teachers, and against other members of'the community.
I know hon. Members generally have been interested in the question of war service. There present legislation and the Bill which I propose proceed on quite a clear principle—that whatever service a man was in when he joined up for military service in the War, his war service will count as if it were the service which he left. That seems a perfectly clear principle, but the moment you leave that principle and conjecture with more or less certainty what service he might have entered had not the. War supervened, you get into a region of conjecture, where it is absolutely impossible for you to do anything for one class of teacher without. discriminating unfairly against another class of teacher, and discriminating unfairly between teachers and civil servants and other classes. That is 'the principle by which we have to abide. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members, while they will doubtless put forward—and will be perfectly justified in taking that, course—claims for certain classes of persons, I hope they will not press them unduly, because these things must be dealt with on a clearly recognised principle.
Finally, may I deal with two subjects which have been questions of controversy?
In the first instance, there is the question of the contributions from local authorities. Of course, local authorities do not like to contribute. None of us likes any extra expense, but I think the history of this superannuation question, if it shows anything at all, shows the deplorable result of trying to deal with salaries apart from superannuation, and superannuation apart from salaries. As a matter of fact, superannuation is deferred salary. The local authority must be responsible for salaries, assisted by a grant from the Board of Education. It must be largely responsible for the salaries if local self-government in education is to remain at all, and for that very reason the local authority must be responsible jointly with the Exchequer for superannuation as deferred pay.
I am perfectly cognisant of the very great difficulty under which many local authorities labour at the present moment in providing for the cost of education, but it is very much better to my mind that local authorities should draw up the programmes which I have asked for —that they should plan educational advance in the full consciousness of what the cost of such advance will be, even if that leads to slower educational advance, than that they should be able to draw up their programmes uncles. a system which artificially excludes from their consideration such an enormously important part of the cost of improved education as the superannuation of teachers. That is the principle upon which the Government have proceeded. We have taken every opportunity, and I personally have taken every opportunity, of consulting local authorities, and I find that many of them entirely agree in principle with the view which I have suggested to the House. Not only have I consulted the local authorities, but they have been consulted by the Committee, and have had a full opportunity of stating their objections, and with a principle as strong as this is, after all these consultations, I am afraid I can hold out no hope that the Government is prepared to give way on this point.
The second point of controversy is the question of finance. We have carried out the recommendations of the Emmett Committee in regard to the accumulation of contributions, and in regard to the
giving of benefits dependent upon the principle of accumulative contributions. We have followed the recommendation of the Committee in putting the whole burden of the back pay upon the Exchequer and calling upon the contributors to contribute only towards future service. We have, however, departed from the recommendations of the Emmott Committee in one respect, and it is that instead of requiring the Treasury to pay the contributions into a separate fund to be invested at current rates of interest, we have directed by Section 15 and the Second Schedule that the contributions shall be paid to the Treasury, and shall be accounted for. by the Treasury to the contributors.
I do not want to repeat the arguments I have already used in public on this point, but I would like to tell the House what is the financial effect of this change. If hon. Members will look at page 3 of the White Paper which deals with the financial effect of the superannuation scheme, they will see that the effect of having a fund as proposed by the Emmott Committee would be, taking as the basis the salaries scale in force before Lord Burnham's recent award, that in 1926-27 the net Exchequer charge for pensions would be £2,440,000 more than it would be under our proposal. in 1928-29 it would be £3,500,000 more, and even in 1943-44 it would still be nearly £2,000,000 more than the net Exchequer charge under our proposal. Eventually, the net. Exchequer charge under our proposal will, of course, be. greater than under Lord Emmott's proposal, but that will not be until more than 40 years hence. For the next 30 years, at any rate, the net charge on the taxpayer will be, very much less under our proposal than under Lord Emmott's. The taxpayer of to-day, therefore, and of to-morrow. gains enormously by our proposal, hut he does not gain at the expense of the taxpayer of the future, for this reason, that. it is far better, in public finance, to deal with your revenue, to deal with your assets, as one, than to deal with them in a number of separate funds. The taxpayer of the future benefits quite as much, and, indeed, much more by the devotion of a given sum to the reduction of War Debt., than by the investment of that sum at current rates of interest in a separate fund.
There is one more point which I must mention. The taxpayer of to-day and to-morrow does not gain at the expense of the taxpayer of the, future. The taxpayer of the future will have to bear an increased burden at a time when the burden of War debt is very much reduced as compared with what it is at present, and one of the important points about the matter is this: the 1918 Act broke down because of the steep rise in the cost of superannuation at the very moment when the burden of taxation was highest. The danger point in this matter is at the moment when the gross burden of taxation is at its highest. It is, I believe, far better, from the point of view of the security of the teacher, to postpone the incidence of that burden until a time when the gross burden of taxation will be less, than it is to throw it upon the taxpayer at this moment. But neither does the taxpayer gain at the expense of the teacher or the local authority. Here there has been a good deal of mystification. Lord Emmott, in a, letter which he wrote to the Press, appears to he under the impression that the result of not funding contributions may be that local authorities and teachers will have to contribute more than the 7 per cent. of salary which is their net contribution under our proposal, because the eventual burden of superannuation benefit will be equivalent to something like 20 per cent. of the total annual salaries bill 45 years hence; and that, therefore, if contributions are not funded now, local authorities and teachers may have to contribute 40 years hence double the amount which they are asked to contribute under this Bill.
That is an entire mistake. The point of our proposal is that, whereas under Lord Emmott's fund, it would have been the fund that was responsible for finding the benefits, and not the Treasury, under our proposal the Treasury is solely responsible for finding the cash to pay the benefits. 'While it is perfectly true that 45 years hence the total annual superannuation benefit will amount to a figure roughly equivalent to 20 per cent. of the salaries bill at that time, that burden will fall, as to 7 per cent. only, on the local authorities and the teachers —that is to say, the local authorities and the teachers will be paying 7 per cent., precisely as they do at the present
moment, and the Treasury will be paying 13 per cent. The whole increased liability must fall on the Treasury. I think Lord Emmott has called this account a bogus fund. It does not pretend to be a fund, but it does pretend to be, and it is, a valid account of liability as between the Treasury and the contributors. The account will continue to show a favourable balance for at least as long as, if not longer, than a fund would show a balance, and, so long as that is the case, the Treasury bears the whole extra liability. Therefore, the account is not a bogus account, but a perfectly valid account of liability as between the Treasury and the contributors.
If I may say a word about the rate of accumulation assumed in the account, it is assumed that teachers' and local authorities' contributions accumulate at the rate of 3½ per cent. That is intended to be a rate permanently and finally laid down, and not subject to variations. We could, of course, have named a higher rate on the basis of higher rates at present obtainable on Government securities in the market, but we have deliberately not done that, because it would entail future alterations. In naming a rate of accumulation of:31 per cent. for a, period of, say, 80 years, we are guaranteeing the contributions against any capital depreciation—which would not be the case with an actual fund—and in view of this 31-percent.is,T think it, will he admitted by any financial expert. as much as we could provide as a fixed rate of accumulation permanently. On that note I should like to end my remarks, which, I am afraid, have gone very much beyond the time I ought to have occupied. It is the object of this Bill to make a permanent settlement of this question. I hope the year 1925 will be remembered as the year in which the whole question of teachers' remuneration was finally settled, in so far as any finality can he attained. We have had Lord Burnham's award, and this Bill will, I hope, complete a permanent settlement of the question of superannuation. If it does, I can claim no credit for myself. If we have, been able, as I think we have, to produce a Bill, subject to the discussion of Committee points upstairs, which satisfies the great mass of the opinion concerned, the credit is entirely
due to the extremely able and energetic officials of my Department who have been concerned in drafting the Bill. To them, I am sure, the House is as indebted as I am, and it is in the hope that we do now see the end of a long and somewhat twisting road, not entirely without its pitfalls for incautious wayfarers, that I commend this Bill to the consideration of the House.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: It is not often that the pleasure falls to a Member on this side of the House of rising to give general support to a statement made from the ether side, but I am very delighted, indeed, to have the pleasure and privilege of doing that on this occasion in connection with this Bill. The Noble Lord urged that, in order to economise time, we should not make too detailed an examination of the history of this subject, but I am bound to say that, as one who has been at one time a member of the profession which is concerned in this Bill, I cannot help feeling that it is not easy to avoid taking a retrospective glance over the past in regard to this subject. Those of us who have been associated with the teaching profession at one time, and those who are still, will remember the very difficult times that preceded the year 1918 in the matter of superannuation. The arrangements that then prevailed were very mean and niggardly, to say the least of them, and, because they were mean and niggardly, they were on that account somewhat unjust to the people concerned. The Noble Lord just said that it has been a long and twisting road. I was almost going to observe that it has been a long and wearisome trek, from a sort of Egypt of economic bondage for the teachers to what I might, perhaps, be allowed to call the Canaan of promise. That long and difficult journey, however, has taken the teachers, not 40 years, as fell to the lot of the Israelites, but nearly 50 years, I believe, and there was very little in that time to sustain them except the very poor and sparse manna which fell by reason of the 1918 Act. To-night I have the pleasure of congratulating the Noble Lord upon the good fortune that has fallen to him of leading the teachers into a land which, while not, perhaps, flowing with milk and honey, still provides a sort of sustenance that is more stimulating and refreshing, and more satisfying than that afforded in the years before 1918.
9.0 P.M
Some time ago the Noble Lord made an appeal at that Box, discussing educational questions, that the subject of education—and we have an echo of it from him here to-night—should be treated in a non-party spirit. I am delighted, on this occasion anyhow, to re-echo that sentiment, though, perhaps, the Noble Lord will allow me to say, and I am sure he would be willing readily to grant, that, had the good fortune been ours of being at that Box to-night, I have not the faintest doubt that a similar Bill—though, undoubtedly, of course, a better Bill—would have been presented by the representatives of our party, and that all the virtues of this Bill would have been included in ours, and, naturally, none of its vices. I like this Bill in a general way. I shall have some criticisms to make upon it presently, but I like it because I believe its spirit is more spacious, and its outlook is more spacious, than obtained in the days before 1918. I refer to those days because, naturally, from 1918 onwards the conditions were entirely different. I think there is a greater statesmanship in it, and I believe if it were carried even as it is, unamended, it must necessarily lead to a larger measure of contentment amongst the teachers than has been the case for many years. After all, contented teachers must necessarily become more efficient teachers as a consequence. I believe the work that has been done in the last few years to improve the status of the teachers, financially and otherwise, must evoke from them a response of a very hearty kind to this gesture which is made by the State and the Board of Education.
Having said a few words by way of general commendation, perhaps the Noble Lord will now allow me to say one or two words on the other side, lest he might feel unduly flattered. The first point I want to make, not by way of raising controversy again, but by way of pointing out that the feeling has existed and that this is in some measure a departure from the standard which has already been adopted by some of us in the past. I believe evidence was given before the Emmott Committee in support of the contention that a Superannuation Bill should be based upon the non-contributory principle. I believe evidence in support of that was adduced by the
teachers and their representatives, and now for good or for ill that subject has been decided by the presentation, through the medium of this Bill, of the contributory principle. I assume that the principle of the Bill now will be accepted by those concerned on the understanding that the old benefits and the extended benefits involved shall remain permanent, and shall not undergo any change in the future. I assume that the compromise they are making is to be dependent on the recommendation of other principles. The main criticism I have heard of the Bill ranges around a very important point which I rather think the Noble Lord dealt with somewhat inadequately, this question of the fund. I do not propose to enter into that subject in detail. I believe my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) proposes to discuss that subject, and as we want to economise time as much as possible and avoid repetition, I will leave the matter to him, with, perhaps, this remark: that I believe that in the interests of the teachers, and in the interest of all concerned, a fund should be established. I believe that in the absence of a fund we shall subject our selves to the perfectly legitimate criticism that this is unbusinesslike. I believe that the teachers, who are compelled to contribute to this fund, have a right to be guaranteed that there is some sort of stability associated with this. I believe it is an undignified way of conducting this business, and I would ask the Noble Lord, even now, not to close his mind to the possibility of reviewing this aspect of the Bill.
I want, however, to apply myself to another aspect of the Bill which I consider of some importance. When the Noble Lord was speaking, an interruption was made by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris)aproposthe subject. of the first paragraph in the First Schedule. The question ranges round this simple issue, as to whether the word in the Bill relevant to pensions shall be "may" or "shall." That raises the issue as to whether or not the people who are compelled to contribute to this fund shall or shall not have an absolute legal right to the benefits arising from this. As I understand it,
the paragraph in the First Schedule makes it abundantly clear that the teacher has no absolute right to a pension. I will read the Section that is important
 Nothing in this Act shall give any person an absolute right to any superannuation allowance or gratuity.
I am at a loss to understand what the justification for this really is, for in recent legislation the legal right of persons compelled to contribute to a superannuation scheme has been specifically declared. I may refer the Noble Lord to the Police Pensions Act, 1921. In Section 2 (1) the words used are "shall be entitled." A Bill has been tabled recently entitled "The Widows, Orphans and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill," and in the first Subsection the words used are "pensions shall be payable." Similarly I believe in the Local Government and other Officers Superannuation Act, 1922, the obligatory principle was introduced rather than the purely permissive, though, of course, it is fair to point out that local authorities were not obliged to adopt it. The same principle is embodied in the Railway Acts of various dates where a legal claim to benefit was specifically embodied. I admit the right of the Government to safeguard itself in cases of misconduct, but in the main, in the absence of misconduct, it seems to be an unchallenged able and in alienable right that those who contribute to pensions shall have a right to benefit therefrom. The Noble Lord's treatment of the question of the Advisory Committee was scarcely adequate. I am quite prepared to believe that he will do his best to establish as cordial a relationship between himself and the persons concerned as possible, as has been done in the past. But here are people, not on the old basis, receiving pensionsex gratia,but compelled to contribute, and it seems to me that their claim to definite participation as a legal right in consultation in regard to the question of rules and regulations is immensely strengthened by reason of that fact. I therefore urge upon the Noble Lord that this point of view may be further taken into consideration before we reach the Committee stage.
Now I come to enumerate some two or three classes of people who seem to me to require renewed consideration in the interval between now and Committee.
The first class is the ex service men. I know from my brief experience of the Board that there are quite a number of cases of ex-service men who had to appeal specially for consideration because they felt they were somewhat unjustly treated by the Board's decisions in the past. Generally speaking, the Board has agreed as a principle that, so far as salary is concerned, the period of time that they would otherwise have spent in college which they were obliged to spend in the Army shall count as time for the purposes of salary. But if it is right—and I submit it is right—to consider that as entitling those men to consideration for salary purposes it is equally right that they should have the same consideration in the matter of pensions, and I would urge, as I am sure it will he urged by others later, that that class of men shall be treated as considerately as possible before the Bill finishes the Committee stage. There is another class of men whom the Noble Lord did not mention, but who I think are deserving of consideration. They are the people who were interned in concentration camps abroad. There are some men, for instance, who happened to be travelling abroad when the War broke out. They were interned chiefly at Ruhleben, and while there actually performed educational work of an exceedingly valuable kind. Since they were there under duress, it seems to me legitimate to put forward a claim that they should be considered for the purposes of pensions within the confines of this Act.
I should like now to come to another group who, I submit, have been somewhat harshly treated in connection with this problem of superannuation. I refer to the group of people who, I am glad to say, in the main have been brought in—the organiser and inspectors. I congratulate the Noble Lord upon having brought them in for the purpose of future pensions. It is a very excellent move and one upon which he is entitled to our sincerest congratulations, but there are unjust incidences arising from the operation of this proviso, concerning back service. As I understand it, there are two groups of inspectors. There are the Government inspectors and the inspectors of education under the local authorities. These two groups are performing a like kind of work. They supervise the work
of the teachers, they encourage the teachers, they advise the teachers, and they advise the local authorities. In a large measure they do the same kind of work, and yet, as I understand the incidence of this Bill, the Government inspectors will be allowed to estimate for the purpose of their pensions, riot only any previous experience as teachers, but also the time they have spent as inspectors

Lord E. PERCY: No.

Mr. JUNES: I am glad to hear that I am wrong. That is how I understand it On the other hand, the local government inspectors will only be able to count their teaching experience and not their organising experience. That is a different principle entirely from what operates in Scotland. Let me take one or two illustrations to show what this means to some of these people. If a local education inspector has 20 years' teaching experience and has 20 years' organising experience, as I understand the Bill —I hope I am wrong—out of that 40 years which stands to his credit he will only be able to count 20 years for the purpose of pension. On the other hand, if a Board inspector has 20 years' teaching experience and 20 years' experience as an inspector under the Board, he will be able to count the 40 years for the purpose of pension.

Lord E. PERCY: Not under this Bill He will be pensioned exactly on his 20 years' service as a teacher under this Bill. For his service as a Board inspector he has a Civil Service pension.

Mr. JONES:: The explanation seems to be that the difference arises from the fact that the State makes provision for a Board of Education inspector, and while the local government inspector helps to pay towards the Government inspector's pension, the local education inspector, because he is under a local authority, is deprived of being able to count 20 years' experience which he really ought to be entitled to count. We shall have to discuss that in greater detail when we come to the Committee stage. That is a differentiation that does not obtain in Scotland, though after the explanation given by the Noble Lord I see why the differentiation is made in Scotland. It arises from the fact that they are obliged in Scotland to contribute.

Lord E. PERCY: Scotland always had a contributory scheme.

Mr. JONES: The next group of people for whom I would bespeak sympathy from the right hon. Gentleman is that group of people called the pre-1918 teachers. I know that I am submitting to the Noble Lord a very difficult problem, but all the same these people were the people who bore the heat and burden of the day when not only salaries but pensions for teachers were on an extremely niggardly scale. these are the people who might with great truth be said to come within the definition of oliver goldsmith, of people who passed with their pay and pension as "passing rich on £40 a year." I ask the Noble Lord whether some consideration is not a very large group of teachers. I believe their total number is not more then 7,000, and they are a declining number They have all, pretty well, reached the allotted span of life, and the incidence of this claim upon the Board cannot possibly be very heavy, although, perhaps, it is difficult to ask the ordinary way. I ask that should be considered sym-pathetically before this Bill finally reaches its Third Reading.
The Bill makes for a unified profession. I rejoice in the Bill chiefly on that account. I would like the right hon. gentleman to improve it and strengthen it in that particular aspect by unifying the conditions for organisers, inspectors and teachers alike, to enable them to come within the four corners of the Bill. Subject to the criticisms I have made, I wish the Bill good luck. The ship, as it were, is leaving harbour to-night under a very favouring wind. The barometer seems to indicate that the weather is going to be fair, but I cannot promise the Noble Lord that when we get into the less placid waters at the committee stage that there will not be one or two somewhat violent squalls. But he is a good navigator, and when we return on third Reading I hope and believe that the Bill will be deemed to be of such value to the state and the teachers concerned that it will have the united benison of all parties in the House.

Mr. FISHER: I wish to associate myself with the congratulations to the
Noble Lord upon his very clear and brief explanation of an extremely difficult and technical Bill. The Bill, in spite of all the well-known skill of the Noble Lord's advisers, is very difficult and very technical. When I heard that the Noble Lord and the Noble Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board, were putting their heads together in connection with a Superannuation Bill, I cherished the fantastic hope that we should have, at any rate, a document of great elegance and perspicuity. In that hope I have been disappointed.
This Bill is no more elegant or perspicuious than the
un-fortunate Measures with which I was associated. But the Noble Lord has certainly done his best to pour light into dark places. I, in common with the hon. Member for caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), welcome this Bill. I welcome it in the first place, because it promises to provide a settlement of an outstanding
and difficult question, which has caused a great deal of uncertainty in the minds of teachers; a settlement long overdue. I welcome it, in the second place, because it secures to the teaching profession substantially the benefits which were promised them under the Act of 1918,subject, of course, to the obligation of the 5 per cent. contribution. Then I welcome it because, while it does intro-duce the principle of a 5 per cent. con. case, secures to every teacher that he will receive at least the value of his contribution at compound interest at 3 per cent. That is very valuable.
Lastly, the Bill is to be welcomed be-cause, as the Noble Lord has pointed out, it extends the area of the beneficiaries under the Teachers Superannuation Act. It extends the benefits of the Act to directors and organisers of education, to inspectors, to teachers who are engaged, for instance, in unemployment centres, and it holds out hope of extending the benefits to the teachers in private schools. Moreover, this Bill will be greatly welcomed in the Universities be- cause unless I misunderstand the purport of the Bill—and
the Noble Lord will correct me if I am wroung—the
effect is that a university teacher who,for in-stance, has done 20 years' service in a University under the joint pensions scheme and 10 years' service in a grant-aided school. will be entitled to a pen-
sion on his 10 years' service in the grant-aided school whether the service be future service or back service. That is my reading of the Clause. Is that right?

Lord E. PERCY: indicated assent

Mr. FISHER: That is very satisfactory. After all, it is of very great importance that members of the teaching profession should circulate easily between school and University, and if it were for no other feature than this the Bill would be very welcome. In one respect the Noble Lord has been more fortunate than I was. I remember when I desired to consider the case of directors of education, inspectors and administrative officers, I was told it was impossible to bring administrative officers under the title of a Teachers Superannuation Bill. The Noble Lord has had other advice and he is very fortunate because, after all, those organisers and directors of education are performing valuable service in the educational world. I associate myself with the hon. Member for! Caerphilly in his desire to see the provision in respect of those organisers made a little wider and more generous than appears to be the case in the Bill. All organisers and inspectors, being administrative officers connected with the service of education, should enjoy the benefits of this Bill. I do not think it is an answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly to say that that obligation rests on the local education authority, because, I understand the Government are proposing to shoulder that obligation with regard to future service, and I do not see how a difference in principle could be established between future service assisted by the Government and past service.
I do not propose to travel over the ground already covered by the lion, Member. There are, however, one or two points to which I should like to draw the Noble Lord's attention. In the first place, he is introducing into this Bill for the first time the principle of a contribution from local education authorities. I think that is right. I agree with everything that fell from the Noble Lord on that point. Local education authorities ought to be associated, not only with the obligation to pay salaries, but also with the obligation to contribute to the pensions scheme. I cherish, however, an apprehension that when the six years are
over—the six years covered by the recent Burnham agreement—the local authorities may take their contributions out of the salaries of the teachers, and I should like to see provision made against that. The Noble Lord hoped that 1925 would be memorable in the annals of education as the year in which the material conditions of the teaching profession, both in respect of salaries and pensions, were finally settled so far as finality can be obtained in mundane affairs. I re-echo that very laudable aspiration. I hope that we may reach that period of stability. But unless the Board of Education is prepared to take a step which was recommended to it, as I understand, by the chairman of the Burnham Committee, unless it is prepared to say to the local education authority, "You shall not obtain any financial advantage by offering to the teachers in your area salaries lower than those agreed on by the Burnham Committee, ' I am afraid that the condition of stability will not be reached. I had always hoped that the Board would be in a position to take such a step. In my time price conditions were very uncertain, economic conditions were in a state of revolution, it was quite impossible for the Board to take a step of that kind. I do not for a moment suggest that the present moment would be the right moment to take that step. It may or may not be. I have not given sufficient study to the economics of the question. I hope, however, that before the three years have expired after which the local education authorities become responsible for a contribution to pensions, the Board may take the bold step of making the salaries mandatory. As the Noble Lord told the House, the question of salaries and the question of pensions are inexplicably intertwined one with the other.
Then there is the question of funding. The Noble Lord made, if I may say so, a very plausible case for the line which the Government have taken with respect to the funding of contributions. He has pointed out that by taking the course which is prescribed in the Bill the taxpayer of to-day or to-morrow is relieved of a very considerable financial burden which is transferred to the taxpayer a a more distant date. He has pointed out that the taxpayer of that more distant date will be relieved of a debt charge in virtue of the arrangement which he is
making now, from which he would not be relieved if he introduced the funding system this year. There is a great deal in that.
On the other hand, there is, of course, the fear that another generation may have new and unsuspected emergencies which we cannot forecast yet. There may be other wars, there may be other great financial difficulties, and on the whole it is a safe financial principle to assume as much of the burden of financing any scheme which is voted by Parliament in any particular year, as we can reasonably stand, and although I do not profess to be a financial expert, and speak with very great reserve as to the financial point of view, I should have thought that it would have been the sounder course to fund, but as I have said I speak with great reserve on that point. In any case, there is no doubt that the teachers would feel a greater sense of security under a funding system than they will feel under the system of the Bill, and that in itself seems to me to be a recommendation in favour of the course suggested by the Emmott Committee.
I do not wish to go into Committee points. There is, however, one small point which might perhaps escape the Noble Lord's attention, and which I think is in line with the general principle of this Bill. In the Statutory Rules and Regulations any teacher who has served in a non-grant-aided school for a period of, say, 10 years, and in a grant-aided school for a period of 25 years, is only allowed to count 30 years towards his pension. I cannot help thinking that that rule works unfortunately, and that it would be desirable to have it abolished. I say that, although the rule was passed when I was President of the Board, lint I think it acts as a restriction of that circulation of teachers between different types of schools, which it is one of the very laudable objects of my noble Friend's Bill to promote. Therefore, I would like to see that restriction abolished.
Everyone is glad to hear that the Noble Lord intends, in effect, to set up an Advisory Committee to deal with these rules and regulations. I hope that he will see fit to provide for a full and adequate representation of the secondary
schools on the Committee because, so far as my own experience of the Board goes, we were at the Board very much more fully informed about the conditions prevailing in the elementary schools of the country than we were about the conditions prevailing in the different types of secondary schools. Therefore I think that it would be desirable to have them specially represented. I was very glad also to hear that the Noble Lord was keeping an open mind on the 13 years' qualifying period, and that he would consider the possibility of reducing it in certain conditions. I feel certain that the Noble Lord will receive a great deal of helpful and healthy criticism as the Bill passes through Committee, but I am sure that he will have no reason to complain of the reception which has been given to it on this occasion.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: I hope that I shall not detain the House more than ten minutes at any time, but when the burgess represents, I suppose, the largest number of secondary teachers represented by any burgess, the enormous number of schoolmasters trained in Oxford University, and the very large number of governors of schools who are also my constituents, and when he is appealed to by a representative and important body of those people, it is his duty to make himself their mouthpiece to the Minister in charge of the Bill. I speak on behalf of the governors and masters of the great non-grant-aided schools which yet have been declared efficient by the Board of Education, and the memorandum drawn up for me. which I am requested to lay before the Minister lays down this plaint or grievance on the part of those bodies.
Under the previous School Teachers Superannuation Acts, in order to obtain the benefits for the masters of these large secondary schools, the governors submitted to various impositions made by the Board of Education. For instance they agreed to take boarders at the nomination of the local education authorities, with the result that the governors of these schools had to provide large sums of money for these nominated scholars. They were also obliged to accept nominees from the Board of Education, and also the local education authorities of the counties upon the governing body, and in many other ways they had to submit to the rulings of the Board of Education in order to get for their
masters the benefit of the previous Acts. The governors of these schools did so most unwillingly but in justice to their masters, who were allowed under these Acts to get the pension benefits while serving in the secondary schools, and to take them wherever they went afterwards, the governors were prepared to undertake extra liabilities in the interests of the masters.
But it would appear, my informants tell me, that under the Bill now before us it is proposed that in future schools like these I have spoken of, non-grant-aided schools which have been declared efficient by the Board of Education, will not be entitled to claim the same benefits for their masters as they have been able to claim up to the present time. It is true that in Part 4, Clause 20, the Board of Education seem to be given power to make schemes to extend the operation of the Act, but there is nothing to imply that they will, be bound to do so. Therefore it is from our point of view conceivable that all the money which these schools have spent, and all the trouble to which they have been put on behalf of the future of their masters, may be wasted. This seeming to be an injustice, I am asked to appeal to the Minister to see that in Committee some care is taken of the future of the rights of schools which have put themselves under liabilities under previous Acts, and which seem likely to lose by the present Bill. The governors who write to me say they have no objection to that provision in Clause 9 of the Bill which provides that the employer shall contribute an amount equal to 5 per cent. of the teacher's salary, for the time being, for the purpose of paying the cost of benefit under that part of the Bill. But they wish to get an assurance from the Minister that the large amount of trouble which has been placed upon them, and the large sums of money which they have been induced to spend, in order to bring themselves under earlier Acts, may not be sacrificed under this Bill.

Mr. COVE: I do not think the discussion of this Bill should pass without some word of, shall I say, gratitude, to the author and initiator of the 1918 pension scheme. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher) and I have differed on several occasions in this House, but I am sure he
will realise that my protestations in this matter are quite sincere, and I should like also to pay my meed of praise and that of many teachers to the work of the late Sir James Yoxall, who was associated with him in the passing of that Measure. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill made a very clear statement of its provisions, but I confess I could not quite follow his argument with regard to the matter of funding. It may be my fault, because I am quite an amateur in matters of finance—though I know very well how to spend money. I have read the memorandum issued by the right hon. Gentleman, and I notice he claims that the security of this scheme will obviously be greater if the main burden of pensions falls upon the Exchequer 30 years hence, when the burden of War debt and War pensions will be less than it is at present. That postulates, I think, normal development in this country and other countries along peaceful lines. It takes us a great distance into the future. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman says we are now bearing burdens with regard to War pensions and unemployment insurance which will be lightened in the future, and therefore the general taxpayer will have less to pay. That I think is venturing too far into the future to give a great sense of security to those who are interested in the permanency and stability of this fund. This fund is a paper fund. It creates no capital tangible assets. The money paid in will be immediately paid out in relief of the Exchequer at this stage. I can imagine a future Chancellor of the Exchequer—say 30 or 40 years hence—declaring "This paper fund was introduced by the Government of 1925, because of the then existing burdens of War pensions, unemployment and so forth, and it was forecasted then that those burdens would be less now, but the burdens are not less, they are more." If the burdens turn out to be equal to or more than the present burdens, then certainly that future Chancellor will have the right to say that the prophecy of the right hon. Gentleman has been falsified, and that under such conditions the financial arrangements must be changed. I have read carefully the evidence given before the Select Committee when the 5 per cent. cut was made in connection with superannuation. There, it was distinctly argued by the Government of the day, that one Parliament did not and
could not bind a future Parliament. It was argued very forcibly and accepted by the majority of the Committee, and eventually by the House, that the change in the economic conditions of the teachers on the one hand and of the country on the other, gave Parliament the right to change the very fundamentals of that Measure, and make it a contributory one without being open to any charge of a breach of faith. I know the right hon. Gentleman wants stability, and wants a final solution of this question. I think myself there would be more stability, a greater degree of permanency, and a better chance of a, final solution if there were created at this time, in this Bill, a definite and distinct fund into which the teachers' contributions, the contributions of the State, and the contributions of the local authorities would be paid. I do not wish to discuss that point further, as it may arise at some future stage of the Bill.
I pass to another main issue involved in the Bill which has already been raised, namely, the question of "shall" or "may." Yesterday I asked a distinguished hon. and learned Member of this House whether in legal terms "may" might mean "shall." He said: "Probably under certain conditions may ' might mean shall,' but you can take it from me that shall ' never means ' may '." We want in this Bill to have "shall" all the way through. We want it in the first place because it is the logical development and proper outcome of the 1898 Act. That Act has two parts, the annuity part and the pensions part. The annuity part was based upon contributions, and it stated "contributions shall be paid," and" so many years' service shall be given "and" the teacher on attaining the age of 65 or at any later date, etc., shall be entitled." There is the definite word "shall" in the original Act of 1898 forming the basis of that part of the Act which demanded contributions. We say that in this Measure the Government have used the word "shall" in relation to contributions from the teachers; they say that the local authority "shall" pay, but on the other hand, with regard to benefits, it is said that teachers "may" have this pension or "may" have that gratuity. Therefore if this Bill is the logical out-
come and proper development of that part of the Act of 1898, which provided for contributory basis, we say this Bill ought to have in it the provision of "shall "instead of" may."
That point will come up in Committee, and I only wish to register my desire at this stage that "shall" should be the basis of the Bill, and not "may."
Now I turn to the ex-service men. The right hon. Gentleman laid it down as a principle—I tried to catch his exact words—that whatever service the man was in when he left for war will be counted. Under the provisions of this Bill, I do not think that that principle exactly obtains and is applied in detail. I will give one case, and perhaps, in order to be brief, I had better read it. I had a letter from an ex-service man which puts the matter very clearly. He says:
 My case is typical of many. In 1913, after six years as an uncertificated teacher, so obviously I was not in training to enter the profession—I was in the profession—I entered college and was sufficiently ill-advised "—
This is evidently a bit of bitterness owing to future treatment—
 to join the company of Territorial;, run for the college students. In August, 1914, therefore, I bad no option but to obey the mobilisation order, and in the following Spring to proceed to France, where I remained till January, 1919. This time, September, 1915, to January, 1919, the authorities now refuse to regard as recognised for superannuation purposes, because I was in training for, hut not actually in. the profession. I repeat here that I had already actually taught classes for six years. It is this point that is considered by many situated like myself to be a very unjust one.
There is a very distinct and clear claim. The right hon. Gentleman has an open mind, I believe, on a great many questions, but he seemed far too definite, if I might say so respectfully, in regard to the position of the ex-service men, and I am going to ask him to keep an open mind in order that he might deal at least with some of the cases where it can be definitely proved that a man was in the profession, and that his professional career was distinctly broken. We have recognised in the 1918 Act the uncertificated teachers generally for pension purposes, and I hope that, these periods of broken service, due to War service, will be recognised by the right hon. Gentleman when we get to the Committee upstairs. Then there is the question of
the statutory Committee, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will continue to keep the open mind than he evidently has at present upon this matter. We shall have the privilege in Committee of putting Amendments giving definite aim and purpose to what we think ought to be embodied in the Bill.
10.0 P.M.
Finally, I want to call attention to the provision for organisers. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has recognised the service for future service. He has admitted the principle, fully, I think, that it is a. good thing that teachers who have been promoted for efficiency to organisers should in future come within the provisions of the Pensions Bill, and I hope that, having admitted the principle for future teachers who are promoted in this manner, the Noble Lord will see his way to go a little step further, and fully admit it. I believe the organisers on their part are prepared to make some concessions with regard to the point he mentioned about the payment for back service, and I, therefore, since he mentioned it, have every hope that we shall be able amicably to settle even this that I venture to call injustice to these men who have rendered good service in the past. I welcome the Bill as a whole. I am sorry that we have not provision for a fund. I believe there would be far more stability if a real fund were created in the Bill. I would not go so far as Lord Emmott and call it bogus—I would not attempt to insinuate any fraudulent motive on the part of the right hon. Gentleman—but undoubtedly there would be more security in the fund, and teachers would feel that their money was safer. The test of the finance is the test of a crisis. It might be that this scheme would go on all right during a normal, peaceful development, but the testing time would come, as it did the last time, in a period of crisis, and a real fund would stand that test and would give greater security than this paper fund would. You cut off teachers from the main body of financial interests in this country by giving them this paper fund. If they had investments, their interests would be linked up, as far as I can see, with the general interests of those who have investments in securities, and I believe the experience of the last few wars has been that these securities went up rather than down in the time of crisis. In such a time, it would provide
more security, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to put the burden upon this generation and not upon the future generation.

Mr. C. W. CROOK:: May I join in congratulations to the Minister of Education for bringing in this Bill? All that I am going to say about the Bill will be in the hope of making it a better Bill when it gets to Committee. May I join, too, in the words of praise given to Lord Emmott's Committee for the very excellent Report upon which this Bill is mainly founded? As a matter of fact, the criticism that I may offer will be to those parts of the Bill which do not follow Lord Emmott's Report. May I also add the thanks of the teachers to the right hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher), to whom we owe his own Bill of 1918, upon which this Bill is founded? First, with regard to the benefits Taid down in this Bill, the conditions remain practically those of 1918–30 years' service recognised or qualified or the half-time between certification and 65 years of age for those who were qualified under the 1898 Act. But it also brings in a third addition of benefit for which teachers, particularly in technical schools, will be very grateful. That is the new condition that qualifies for a pension for three-quarters of the service between entering the profession and 65 years of age. That is a new condition which we very much value, but we do not like the total omission of Lord Emmott's suggestion that the pension should he obtainable after 10 years' service

Lord E. PERCY:: At 65.

Mr. CROOK: At 65. As a number of teachers who will qualify under the smaller conditions of 22½ years' service will disappear, because they must have been in service in 1898 or before 1918 to qualify for that, the condition for a pension would remain fundamentally under 30 years if it had to be obtained at 60. I rather gathered from the Noble Lord that he is prepared to consider some modification of that in Committee, and I can assure him that he will have ninny Amendments to that effect. Of course, teachers all welcome the action of the State in taking over the burden for back service. We think it is a great benefit which we owe primarily to the right hon. Member for the English
Universities, and which we welcome as being continued in this Bill. We are glad also that the Board has seen that the action of the House of Commons—which, I suppose, it is almost treason to criticise —in 1922, when it imposed a levy of 5 per cent. for pensions, was not really a proper action, in so much as it left the teacher under the conditions of a noncontributory scheme while making it contributory from that. time.
The benefits of this new Bill, I understand, are to go back to June, 1922. That, again, is a point which we welcome. We welcome too—I am giving all the praise at the beginning—the modification in the condition with regard to marriage. That affects women teachers on their return to school. Under the Act of 1918, if a woman teacher got married and returned for two or three months to school and then left again, the only interval allowed for reduction of her qualifications for pension was the first interval, the few months between marriage and return. This Bill proposes that all absences after 10 years shall be allowable. That is a great benefit to our women teachers. Other speakers have referred to the widened scope of this Bill, in including certain inspectors, and so forth. We shall all agree that that widened scope is a great improvement. But I want to associate myself with a previous speaker in saying that I do not think that in the terms of proved external service the local inspectors and organisers have been as fairly treated as those working under the Board of Education. As the Minister has accepted the principle that he will bear all the burden of their future service, he must in fairness bear the burden of their back service too. We shall all work for that in the Committee stage.
I want to say a few words about three classes of teachers who, apparently, are not included in the Bill. Two of them have been mentioned already, but I would like to put the matter in rather a different light. Under the Act of 1918 a teacher who returned from the War disabled was refused the benefit of the death gratuity, although he might remain in the profession. If he died before retiring age no death gratuity could be paid under the Act of 1918. The teachers felt that so much, that out of a fund of our own we have offered to pay death
gratuity in those cases. There are between 50 and 60 such teachers now teaching who know that if they die before their pension age no death gratuity will be paid to their estate. We have already paid two such death gratuities from this fund. We think that that is not a debt which should be paid from our fund; we think that the service which these teachers gave to the State during the War makes that a State debt. I believe that teachers of that category are included in this Bill, but I want to be certain that that is so before we reach the Committee stage. A second category has been mentioned. We want to emphasise this point perhaps more than others. Our training colleges for men before the War were practically denuded of students, who left to join the Army or the Navy. The Noble Lord in his speech said, in effect, that whatever service a man was engaged in when he entered the War would be regarded as his service. As a matter of fact, all these students who left the training colleges to join the Army or the Navy had given a pledge that they would become teachers in. State schools when they left the training colleges. There could be nothing more definite than that these people were really teachers in training when in the training colleges. Their case is not at all analogous to that of people in the universities, who go to the universities with an open mind and decide what they will be after they leave the universities. I think that these students have a claim, on the Minister's own statement, to be, considered as teachers when they joined the Army or the Navy from the training colleges.
A third category has been mentioned, I believe, and I do not see that it would be very easy to get them into this Bill unless we have the utmost sympathy of the Minister. There are 4,500 teachers who retired before 1918. There have been attempts made to press upon this House some amelioration of their condition, and the answer always has been that the reason why that cannot be done is that we must treat all people who retired before 1918 in the same way. That is a very strong and valid argument if the eases were on all fours. These teachers are classed with retired policemen, retired civil servants and retired Army and Navy men. But they did not retire on the same terms. The civil servant retired on two-
thirds of his salary or its equivalent at the time of his retirement. So did the policeman and others. But not the teacher. Teachers who retired before 1918 retired on very much smaller pensions than two-thirds of their salaries. Here is a case in point. The head teacher of a London school who earned £400 a year retired in 1917 on a pension of £40 per annum, or only one-tenth of his salary. A difference like that in the conditions of retirement calls for a difference in the way in which the teacher should be treated by this House.
There is another reason which may lead the Minister to reconsider that point. When the 1918 Act was passed, teachers had been contributing under the Act of 1898 for 20 years, and at the close of the 20 years, on the introduction of the 1918 Act, there was rather more than £6,000,000 of the teachers' money in that fund. The whole of that money was swept into the coffers of the State, with the one condition that the State should become liable for all the annuities of teachers who were under the Act. Apparently, that was a very fair bargain. But there was this difference. The State in 1918-19, when these funds were taken, was getting 31 per cent. interest on the funds and was only paying off the annuities at the rate of 21 per cent. Therefore, the State is getting a profit from the teachers' money, now £6,500,000 to £7,000,000, of 11 per cent. If the Minister really has any sympathy with these pre-1918 teachers, there is the fund that he can raid for the purpose.
Let me say a few final words with regard to the Emmott Report and this Bill. I have spoken so far mostly about present teachers, but I think the House will agree that it is the duty of present teachers, not only to look after themselves, but to look after those who are coining after them. it is our duty, therefore, to support this Bill not so much for the benefits we are going to get as for the benefit which future teachers are going to get, and see whether those benefits accord with the amounts they are asked to pay. I agree entirely with what has been said on the other side in respect to one aspect of the case. I thank that the moneys paid by the teachers to the local authorities for pensions should bear the burden of the proper shire of the pensions. 1 do not think the State
has a right to take the money given for over a period of 40 years, paid in year by year. I am certain that if a crisis does arise such as arose when the Geddes Committee was set up it would be much easier for a Committee of that kind to stop the pensions scheme altogether, and I think we want some Much stronger arguments than the Minister has given to this House before we decide in the way he suggested.
The second point is that this Bill does not set up a real Statutory Advisory Committee. What does the Bill say? Speaking from memory, it says that the. Board may, with the consent of the Treasury, and in conjunction with the local authorities and the teachers, set up a Committee. Obviously, that is a very weak translation of the wishes of the Emmott Committee, and it is certainly a very weak translation of what the teachers desire. The Board does not seem to have recognised that this is a contributory scheme, that it is the teachers who pay, and that, therefore, the teachers have a right to see that their money is properly funded, or properly stabilised by way of an equivalent fund, and they certainly have the right to have some voice in the conditions under which the money is managed or spent. Therefore I think we shall have to insist upon a much stronger Advisory Committee than that. Just one other word. The Minister spoke about paragraph 6 of the First Schedule, as though it did not limit the right of the teacher to his pension. I hope that. is so; but I think we shall have to examine that Schedule very closely and very carefully, and shall have to ask the Minister to assure us. either by argument or Amendment, that it does give the security asked for

Mr. D. M. COWAN: The Bill now before us technically applies to England and Wales only, but it does, in fact, have a very direct bearing upon affairs in Scotland, for not only does this Bill decide what amount of financial assistance Scotland is to get for the purposes of superannuation, but very largely the line of this Bill will be the determining factor of the line to be followed by the Scottish Bill. I will, therefore, venture to obtrude myself as a Member from the North of the Tweed for a few minutes. I should like, in the first place, to congratulate the President of the Board of Education not only on the character of
the Bill which he has introduced, but also on the manner in which he has introduced it. We have seldom had in the House a speech so brief or lucid as that to which we listened to-night. I would also congratulate the President on the fact that he has associated with him in his office one of the most distinguished of our Scottish Members. We do look to see a progressive spirit in the Board of Education which sometimes has been absent from it. I do not intend to enter into Committee details of the Bill, but I feel that in widening the scope of it the Board of Education has made a very wise departure which will be of immense benefit to the whole educational system of our country. What we have lacked more than anything else almost has been a proper measure of mobility in the educational services of the country, and we all rejoice, without distinction of party, that the Measure before us will very largely secure that mobility in England; and I join with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher) in expressing our thanks that university service has now been conjoined with service in schools in such a way that a person having taken part in both loses on neither side. Mobility having been secured so far as the schools in England are concerned, I would appeal to the President to see that- in the Measure now before us he takes every possible step to secure reciprocity between England and Scotland. Nothing could be better for the two countries than that there should be an easy flow of teachers from one to the other without any loss of superannuation right, and therefore I hope that in this matter of reciprocity if any little difficulties arise there will be consultation between the Board -of Education and the Scottish Education Department in order that these difficulties may be removed.
One other point I want to call attention to. Under Part IV of this Bill the President takes power to make arrangements with those Dominions where there is already a pension scheme. I would like him to take power to give as qualifying service time which is spent in any of the Dominions, whether they have a statutory pensions scheme or not.

Lord E. PERCY: That is counted as qualifying.

Mr. COWAN:: If it is taken as qualifying, I think it will prove to be one of the ways of cementing the Empire of the need of which we hear so much. As I am under obligation to you, Mr. Speaker, to confine my observations to the very shortest possible space, I would only say with regard to the question of funding, that if ever the question does arise, as to suitability or otherwise, we have the words of the President uttered here to-night. which make a very honourable bargain between the teaching profession and the Government of the day which I do not believe will ever be put aside by any future Government. In my last words I would ask the President if it is at all possible to follow the example of Scotland in doing something for those teachers who retired before 1919.

Mr. SOMERVILLE:: I would like briefly to say a. word from the point of view of the secondary teachers. The case of the elementary teachers is comparatively simple, but there are so many different types of secondary schools, there is so much interchange of teachers between grant-aided and non-grant-aided schools that a great many anomalies and a great many difficulties arise, and it will be particularly necessary for the Committee to consider some of those anomalies. I am sure it was a great pleasure to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher) to be able to congratulate the President of the Board of Education on carrying on the good work he began so well in 1919, and the gratitude of teachers is due to both and is freely given.
The Bill seems to me to be a good one, and its value has been increased by the assurances which have been given by the President. He has told us that he is disposed to give some consideration to the case of men who retire before the age of 60 because of infirmity and unavoidable causes, and he says that he is going to establish an advisory Committee. I think that is particularly necessary in the case of secondary schools. The right hon. Gentleman is also taking powers to consult with education authorities and teachers before the rules are drawn up, but in the actual working of the Bill these rules will have to be altered, and I think these representatives should be called into counsel before the rules are altered.
There is another point and that is the provision which is made for the pensions of organisers. That opens a larger avenue for the promotion of teachers, but it is equally more important for the schools because it brings into the administration inspecting posts, men with real knowledge of the schools who will bring a humanising influence and this will have a very beneficial effect. Another point is that for the first time we have an authoritative statement on the question of whole-time teachers, a subject which has caused a good deal of trouble to secondary teachers. Various duties of this kind were performed by secondary teachers which are necessary for the life of the school, but they have not been regarded as teaching time, and that matter has been settled under the present Bill.
With regard to the Advisory Committee, it seems essential that such a committee should be established and made statutory, and that it should be summoned at fixed intervals. Then there is the case of the private schools. In the Bill under Clause 20 the president takes power to admit the men teaching in private schools under the Act. The system of private schools is the step-child of our national educational system. The Board of Education hitherto has not recognised that, and the Act of 1019 has done much to weaken and render inefficient the teaching in those schools because men and women will not seek service in those schools if the service is not pensionable. The service in those schools under the schemes of the present Bill will be pensionable, and there will be a free interchange between schools of the secondary type which will be very much for the benefit of education generally.
I hope if this Bill passes into law that Amendments such as I have suggested will be accepted in Committee, and if the Burnham Award is accepted generally and is made statutory, then we may look forward to a great advance in education, and the teachers will settle down with hope and contentment to their work instead of to bitterness and unrest We shall have some outcry about the cost and people will say, "Look what, education cost before the War." To any thoughtful man it insist be obvioue that the salaries of teachers before the War were scandalously inadequate. Then the
average salary of a secondary school teacher in a grant-aided school
sa year. When we think of these things, and of the advances which have since been made, I think the teaching profession must be and is grateful. This kind of treatment will attract to the schools the right type of men and women, and that will be of very great value in the secondary schools, because it is there we have to train the future leaders of the country, and this will be the greatest national asset we can have. We shall have men and women, for instance, who will give their pupils a real grip of some subject, who will develop their critical faculty, so that they will know when the "Daily Mail" or the "Daily Herald" is talking nonsense, and will make them realise that, although we live in an overcrowded island where the chances are few, still we are the centre of an Empire whose extent is great, and where the chances are also great; and this Bill is a long step towards the realisation of that ideal.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: I rise for only one or two minutes to draw attention to the financial side of this proposal, and to ask the Noble Lord the President of the Board of Education whether, in consultation with the Treasury, he could not work out a better scheme than he offers to Parliament to-day. I think it must be plain to every student of this problem that what is offered to the House is not, strictly speaking, superannuation at all, as we understand it in an actuarial sense. It is a mere fund, no doubt to he safeguarded in times to come, but certainly not a scheme of superannuation in the terms of Acts of that kind which have been passed within recent years
I take the view very strongly—and I believe it is shared by many hon. Members in all parts of the House—that we should not pass a scheme of this kind, either now or in Committee, without understand clearly indeed that we are laying down something which is largely new in this important sphere of provision fol. age. The short point about this fund is that there is a contribution from the teachers, and there is a contribution from the local authorities, and, inasmuch as that contribution from the local authorities ranks up to a certain point for grant from the State, it is easy to measure the
contribution of the third party, namely, the State itself. Accordingly, in the White Paper which has been presented to the House of Commons, there is a kind of measurement of the liability falling upon the National Exchequer in time to come, and that, so far, is perfectly plain and clear; but, as the Noble Lord himself points out, that is merely a fund which, of course, we trust will be duly replenished from time to tame, and out of which I have no doubt the pensions and benefits to the people affected will be duly paid. But that is something substantially different from a superannuation fund under ordinary Superannuation Acts.
No doubt the White Paper argues that this will be subject to an actuarial investigation from time to time, in order to make it clear as to whether there is an equivalence between the contributions from the three sources, on the one hand, and the benefits that are to be paid on the other. I, personally, do not suggest for a minute that there is any likelihood of the State going back upon its bargain, but we are bound at the same time to compare this proposal, first of all with ordinary superannuation, and to ask ourselves whether it is consistent with that; and, in the second place, to ask ourselves quite candidly whether it is a sound financial proposal taken as a, whole.
Let us take the first point, comparing this with ordinary superannuation. It is not unfair to class the provision which the President of the Board of Education is now making with superannuation aswefind it applied to local government officials in this country. That grew up, to a certain extent, under voluntary Acts prior to the permissive Act of 1922, and under that permissive Act a very large number of local authorities in this country have adopted schemes, and there is a very strong feeling in many quarters that that Act will be obligatory at an early date. Be that as it may, the schemes of local government authorities cover a very large number of people whose positionisanalogous to the position of teachers. who, after al], are engaged by the local authorities, who are their primary employers. Under these schemes, a contribution is made by the employé and by the local authority on a strictly actuarial basis, a fund is set up, benefits are
guaranteed under that fund, and every effort is made to ensure the solvency of the fund throughout its life. This is a, departure from that, because we cannot really put this scheme on the same footing at all. It is not a fund of that kind; it is a paper account, to be kept, as I understand it, by the Treasury and by the Board of Education; and, therefore, there is a very substantial difference between the position that teachers are going to occupy under this scheme and the position occupied by other servants of local authorities in so far as they are covered by superannuation schemes.
In the second place, I think the scheme of the Noble Lord is inconsistent with what the Government are doing in other directions in this matter of superannuation. If we take the new proposals relating to widows, orphans and the aged, which will be discussed very soon in this House, there is provision there, up to a point, for an actuarial basis, and, of course, the theory is that in the long run, over a certain term of years, the scheme will be self-supporting, old age pensions included. Between that scheme and the scheme which we have under discussion to-night there is again a vital difference, because no one going to the heart of the problem would put to-night's proposals in any way on the same basis as the scheme in another and wider connection which the Government themselves have introduced.
That leads us quite naturally to the reasons which the Noble Lord advances for this rather curious and, as I regard it, dangerous proposal. He says that, broadly speaking, the object of departing from the clear recommendation of the Emmott Committee to set up a fund on a proper basis is to reduce the liability of the taxpayer in times when our burdens are undeniably high£in those times round about us when we are raising £800,000,000 a year from taxation. The, Noble Lord says quite truly that, for the first years of the scheme, the burden upon the Exchequer will be rather less under the proposal he makes. but. of course, he cannot dispute the fact that later in the day the liability will be heavier. He says, however, that that will be at a time when other burdens have diminished, when we have got rid of a great deal of the expenditure of the present day, the War Debt, and the rest, and when the community will be able to shoulder the obliga-
tion. I am afraid that in this matter the President of the Board of Education is falling into the financial habits of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is building upon an agreeable speculation a long time ahead which, as a pure financial proposal, he has no right to assume in a fund where everything should be on a clear-cut, firm and perfectly guaranteed basis. I do not think there is any real reason for the step the Government have taken in this connection. They have no right to make the assumption that times are going to be easier. in any case, they cannot bind succeeding Parliaments, and in the matter of superannuation they ought to be able to give the beneficiaries a firm guarantee as to what is to happen under a fund whose actuarial basis can be properly ascertained and to which we are perfectly sure the contributing elements are making such contributions as will safeguard the benefits in every shape and form.
I imagine that the President of the Board of Education might say in reply that if you go out for a sound, actuarially constructed fund, you must take all the risks of that fund side by side with any benefits which may accrue from it, and I suppose it would be said by people familiar with this problem that if there is a danger of such a fund becoming insolvent, we, the State, guarantee these benefits to the teachers. If that argument had been used some years ago, it would have had very much greater force than it has to-night. I entirely agree that there are many prominent funds regarding which actuarial advice was secured which are to-day insolvent and into which local authorities in some cases and public bodies in others have been obliged to pour money in order to safeguard the benefits to the recipients. But surely it is not impossible for the State, with an actuarial service at its command and with an ascertained population for the scheme such as is afforded in the case of teachers, to construct something which is on a strictly actuarial basis. There is a great deal of experience to encourage that view, and I press it very strongly because many of us hold that the right of the teachers under such a scheme is stronger in the last resort than it can be under anything of a
quasi ex gratiacharacter even if that is within a statute. If hon. Members turn to one of the Schedules of the Bill they will see that legal right is expressly withheld, and there is not the least doubt that, while of course the State will fulfil a kind of statutory bargain, still thisex gratiaelement remains and I suppose it is not impossible to imagine that there might be certain legal and other difficulties on that head. The point I wish to make is simply that there is a wealth of information for the establishment of a proper fund, that that is the view that the Emmott Committee took, that it would certainly safeguard the teachers much more fully and deeply than this scheme can, and that I do not think the House of Commons should pass this proposal certainly upstairs in Committee until the President. of the Board of Education has been able to show beyond a shadow of doubt that such a proposal is at present impossible.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Duchess of Athol!): Those who are responsible for the Bill, I think, have reason to be very grateful for the friendly spirit with which it has been welcomed in different parts of the House. It has been particularly pleasing to hear the benedictions offered by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), who preceded me in my office, and who was formerly a member of the teaching profession, and also very pleasant to hear the blessings pronounced on the Bill by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher), who was the author of an Act that laid a. great foundation which we are endeavouring to make if possible a little more secure. In the short time that is left to me it is not possible to do more than touch on one or two of the points that have been raised. The first I should like to tae is the question of legal right. This question was very fully considered by the Emmott Committee. They discussed it exactly from the point of view raised by the. hon. Member for Caerphilly the. difference of situation caused by the fact that contributions are now exacted from the teachers. They went into it very fully and they pointed out certain definite advantages which, as it seemed to them, there were in leaving the Board certain discretionary powers. These I think it
will be evident from the statement of my right hon. Friend are very small ones, and not at all likely to be exercised unduly. The Emmott Committee further pointed out that in Scotland, where there was formerly a contributory scheme for several years for teachers, the Department had fully as great powers, and no evidence was forthcoming from Scottish teachers that this condition had been round in any way onerous.
Then I turn to the question of the lack of provision for a fund. I speak with great deference, because I cannot claim to be more than an amateur in financial matters, but there are one or two points of which I might venture to remind the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham). I think he said that to have a superannuation scheme without a fund was a new experiment in superannuation. I think he has forgotten that there are no funds for the police pensions or for the Poor Law officers' pensions. He further instanced the fact that local authorities taking advantage of their powers to frame superannuation schemes under the Local Government Officers Act, 1922, were obliged to fund the contributions. It is worthy of notice that not a. very large number of local authorities have availed themselves of the powers under that Act. I cannot help feeling that it may he possible that. because the funding proposal requires the local authorities to make heavy payments during the first forty years of their superannuation schemes, that may account for the reluctance on the part of some authorities to avail themselves of the powers under the Act but that may be only my supposition. I am sure that with the right hon. Gentleman's experience at the Treasury he will admit that there is a great difference between the stability of local finance and of financial arrangements which have the Treasury guarantee.
Certain fears were expressed by the right hon. Member for the English Universities as to the lack of permanence of any scheme which did not include funding. I think the only reason that there can be for this fear is the fact that the Act of 1918 having established a noncontributory scheme, was followed in 1922 by a scheme exacting contributions from the teachers. He knows the history
of those years better than I do, but he will not dispute that it was not because of any sudden whim on the part of the Government of the day that the teachers were asked for a contribution, nor was it merely because 1922 was a year of great financial stringency. I believe the cardinal fact which accounted for the change in policy was that in the interval there had been an unexpected rise in salaries, which made the cost of pensions on a non-contributory basis in 1922 far beyond what one could foresee in 1918. Since that date salaries have been stabilised. They have been stabilised for a period of six years, and we hope and believe that there will never be a period of uncertainty in regard to salaries such as there was in the days pre 1918 and 1922. Therefore, it does not seem to us that what happened in 1922 is any reason why anyone should fear that any Government. will have a capricious policy in regard to teachers' pensions, any more than one might fear that any Government would be seized with desire to abolish pensions in the Civil Service. Some speakers, including the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. C. W. Crook) seem to regard a pension fund as somethingsacrosanct.The hon. Member spoke of the virtues of the 1898 fund, but he omitted to mention that that fund by 1918 was seriously in deficit through capital depreciation. Therefore, this fund which it was said would be something that could never be swept away and that no Government, however powerful, could touch, was wiped out of existence on the passing of the 1918 Act in exchange for a Treasury guarantee.

Mr. CROOK:: Will the Noble Lady tell me on the valuation of that fund whether they were asked to increase the annuities to 3½ per cent. instead of 2½ per cent.?

Duchess of ATHOLL: I was unable to catch the hon. Member's question, but I think there is no doubt that the fund had much depreciated by 1918, and after that time it ceased to exist. It seems to me there is no foundation for the view that a fund is something which necessarily would give stability and security to teachers' pensions which cannot be given by the proposals of the Bill. After all, we in this country are accustomed to regard a Treasury guarantee as about the best thing this country has to offer. I
do not think I need remind hon. Members opposite that representatives of a certain foreign Government last year should have lively appreciation of its value. Are we to value it less than they?
I would just like to say a word about the teachers who retired before 1918. I am quite certain my right hon. Friend feels the position of those teachers just as keenly as anybody here. There can seldom have been a greater change for any persons as regards salary and pension than teachers experienced in 1918-20, but I would remind hon. Members who raised this question with so much feeling that pre-1919 teachers have been dealt with under two successive Pensions (Increase) Acts. I think it was the late Chancellor of the Exchequer who was responsible for the statement that the last Pensions (Increase) Act£the Act of last year£ought to be regarded as a final one, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to tell us if we attempted to discriminate between teachers and others under that Act that we would be doing something quite impossible and very unfair to those other beneficiaries. My right hon. Friend very regretfully feels that it is not possible for him to deal with those teachers under this Bill.
I come to the question of the students who were in training in the colleges or in the Universities at the outbreak of war, or when they volunteered for service. The question has been raised by hon. Members. Here, again, I must remind them that this point was carefully considered by the Emmott Committee. That Committee took a good deal of evidence and came to the unanimous conclusion that it was impossible to differentiate between the student in the training college and in the university who was training there to be a teacher, and they also felt that it was impossible to differentiate between young men training for the teaching profession, either in a. university or a training college, and those training for the Civil Service. In these cases a certain clement of hypothesis entered into it as to whether young men would become teachers or on what date they would become teachers. Therefore, my right hon. Friend does not feel it is possible to deal with students under this Bill. The case the hon. Member for
Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) produced of broken service£actual teaching service£comes in rather a different category. It is one of what I hope and believe is a very small number of cases of hardship. Those cases will be considered to see whether it is possible to allow them anything.
In reference to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman), my right hon. Friend fully appreciates all that has been done by the class of schools to which he referred to bring their teachers within the benefits of the Act of 1918, and he has every intention of availing himself of the powers which are asked for in the Bill to frame a scheme to bring in schools of that kind, and he hopes that the scheme will be drafted in time to become operative at the same time as the Bill. One point mentioned by the hon. Member for East Ham was the question as to whether ex-service men have been included as eligible for death gratuities. The answer is in the affirmative. Under Clause 5, which deals with the matter of death gratutities to legal personal representatives of deceased teachers, ex-service men may be eligible for this benefit as well as the other benefits under the Bill.
In reference to the question of directors and organisers to which so many speakers have referred, I would like to say how much my right hon. Friend recognises the great services that- have been performed by directors of education in particular. Personally, having been a member of an education authority in Scotland during the first few years of transition from the old small school board area to the large county area, I think that I am in a position to realise what invaluable work has been, and is being, done by directors of education, and to what an extent they have assisted in the great improvement which has followed the introduction of the larger areas. But as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the English Universities will remember, the Emmott Committee limited the directors of education to those who had former teaching service, and they did not propose any arrangement more generous than the one which has been made in the Bill. In regard to the point which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, I should like to make clear that the proposal in the Bill
is that the State should pay half of the directors' back service, and my right hon. Friend has discussed with representatives of the local education authorities as to whether anything more can be done£he does not necessarily object to that£without increasing the liability on the Exchequer. Proposals are I believe to be considered by the local authorities, which I hope if found practicable will improve the position of this very valuable class of public servants.

Orders of the Day — MONEYLENDERS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Ordered, That the Lord Message[8th May]relative to the expediency of committing the Moneylenders (Amendment) Bill to a, Joint Committee be now considered.[Colonel Gibbs.]

Lords Message considered accordingly

Ordered, That the Moneylenders (Amendment) Bill be committed to the Joint Committee on the Moneylenders Bill [Lords].£[Colonel Gibbs.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith

Orders of the Day — ELECTION OF A MEMBER (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE UMPIRE).

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I beg to move,
 That a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether the election of Mr. J. A. Pringle as a Member of this House is valid, in consequence of his holding, at the time of his election, the office of umpire for Northern Ireland under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, as adapted to Northern Ireland by Order in Council dated the 3rd day of March, 1922.
Mr. Pringle was elected one of the two Members for the division of Tyrone and Fermanagh at the last General Election. It now appears that at the time he had been appointed Umpire under the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Orders in Council made under that Act. A question of some nicety has arisen as to whether he held at the time an office of
profit under the Crown which disentitled him from beinga, candidate at the Election. I think I am right in saying that in matters of this sort, if the House chooses to exercise the power, it is the arbiter of its own constitution. Although in some cases where the facts are clear beyond dispute, an hon. Member may take a course which makes it unnecessary for the House to take action of the sort which I now propose, in this particular case Mr. Pringle is perhaps not unnaturally unwilling to incur any risk such as he might do by taking his seat. On the other hand it is not desirable that fear of any technical disqualification should prevent him taking his seat if no such disqualification, in fact, exists. With a view to an inquiry into the whole of the circumstances and into the question whether such disqualification exists or not, I beg to move the appointment of the Select Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether the election of Mr. J. A. Pringle as a Member of this House is valid, in consequence of his holding, at the time of his election, the office of umpire for Northern Ireland under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1020, as adapted to Northern Ireland by Order in Council dated the 3rd day of March, 1922

Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Eleven Members

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Page Croft, Sir John Ganzoni, Mr. Harney, Sir Robert Horne, Mr. Mardy Jones, Sir Malcolm Macnaghten. Sir Charles Oman, Sir James Remnant, Sir Robert Sanders, Mr. Stephen, and Mr. J. H. Thomas nominated Members of the Committee.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records

Ordered, That Three be the quorum

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn".[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes after Eleven o'Clock